Coos County Transportation System Plan
Transcript of Coos County Transportation System Plan
Coos County
Transportation System Plan
March 2011
Prepared for
Coos County
250 N. Baxter
Coquille, OR 97423
Prepared by
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
2100 SW River Parkway
Portland, Oregon
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Coos County Transportation System Plan (TSP) update was funded by Coos County and the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The goals, objectives, and overall decision
process was guided by the County and ODOT management team, as well as supporting
members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and
Consultant Team identified below.
Coos County Management Team
Patty Evernden, Planning Director
John Rowe, Roadmaster
Advisory Committee Members (TAC & CAC)
Bruce Bennett, Coos County Area Transit
Rocky Buckles, Thomas & Sons/C.B.&Y
Rodger Craddock, Coos County
Michelle Hampton, City of Bandon
Sharon Shinnick, Coos County Road
Department
George Gant, Coos County Planning
Kevin Stufflebean, Coos County Board of
Commissioners
Charlie Waterman, Coos County Planning
Terry Mai, Coquille Chamber of Commerce
Joanna Lyons, Coos County
Oubonh White, Coos County Counsel
Joanna Lyons, Coos County Counsel
Timm Slater, Coos Bay/Charleston/North
Bend COC
Terrence O’Conner, City of Coquille
ODOT Management Team
Mike Baker, Region 3 Planning Manager
Allie Krull, Project Manager
Consultant Team – David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Adam Argo, AICP
Gigi Cooper, AICP
Jennifer Danziger, P.E.
Joshan Rohani, P.E.
John Stutesman, AICP
Anneke Van der Mast, AICP
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents i
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Planning Process .................................................................................................................... 1-1
2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 2-1
Goal 1: Mobility ...................................................................................................................... 2-1
Goal 2: Multimodal System .................................................................................................... 2-2
Goal 3: Livability ..................................................................................................................... 2-2
Goal 4: Safety ......................................................................................................................... 2-3
Goal 5: Funding ...................................................................................................................... 2-3
3. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INVENTORY ................................................................ 3-1
Roadway Network .................................................................................................................. 3-1
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................... 3-13
Public Transit Services.......................................................................................................... 3-14
Air Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 3-15
Water Facilities .................................................................................................................... 3-16
Rail Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 3-16
Pipelines ............................................................................................................................... 3-17
4. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES ............................................................. 4-1
Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 4-1
Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................. 4-4
Crash History .......................................................................................................................... 4-8
Demographics ...................................................................................................................... 4-16
5. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES ............................................................... 5-1
Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
Future Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 5-2
Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................. 5-4
6. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN .......................................................................................... 6-1
Roadway System Plan ............................................................................................................ 6-1
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan ................................................................................................. 6-17
Public Transportation Plan ................................................................................................... 6-18
Rail Plan ................................................................................................................................ 6-19
Airport Plan .......................................................................................................................... 6-19
Pipeline Plan ......................................................................................................................... 6-19
Water Plan ........................................................................................................................... 6-19
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Table of Contents ii
7. TRANSPORTATION FINANCING .............................................................................................. 7-1
Existing Budgets ..................................................................................................................... 7-1
Overall Project Needs ............................................................................................................ 7-2
Evaluation of County Funding Needs and Potential Revenue ............................................... 7-3
Potential Funding Sources ..................................................................................................... 7-6
Expiring and Unlikely Funding Sources ................................................................................ 7-13
Funding Strategy .................................................................................................................. 7-17
APPENDIX
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table of Contents iii
Table 3-1. Summary of Roadway Mileage by Jurisdiction ........................................................... 3-1
Table 3-2. Major Collectors in Coos County ................................................................................ 3-3
Table 3-3. Minor Collectors in Coos County ................................................................................ 3-4
Table 3-4. Pavement Conditions Inventory – County Roads ....................................................... 3-5
Table 3-5. County Roads with Poor Pavement Conditions .......................................................... 3-5
Table 3-6. State Highways ............................................................................................................ 3-6
Table 3-7. Pavement Conditions Inventory – State Highways ..................................................... 3-9
Table 3-8. Functionally Obsolete and Structurally Deficient County Bridges ............................ 3-11
Table 3-9. Functionally Obsolete and Structurally Deficient State Bridges ............................... 3-12
Table 3-10. Rural Paved Shoulder Inventory on State Highways in Coos County ..................... 3-14
Table 3-11. Coos County Airports .............................................................................................. 3-15
Table 4-1. Traffic Volume Characteristics from ATR Sites within and near Coos County ........... 4-3
Table 4-2. State Highways Operational Standards ...................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-3. Summary of Two-Lane Highway Operations – Existing Condition (2008) .................. 4-7
Table 4-4. Summary of Intersection Operations – Existing Condition (2008) ............................. 4-8
Table 4-5. Crash History for County Roadways (2003-2007) ....................................................... 4-9
Table 4-6. Crash History for State Highways (2003-2007) ......................................................... 4-11
Table 4-7. Historic Crash Rates for State Highways ................................................................... 4-11
Table 4-8. SPIS and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – US 101 ........................................................... 4-13
Table 4-9. SPIS and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – OR 42 ............................................................ 4-14
Table 4-10. STIP and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – OR 42S ........................................................ 4-14
Table 4-11. SPIS and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – OR 540 ........................................................ 4-15
Table 4-12. SPIS and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – OR 542 ........................................................ 4-16
Table 4-13. Coos County Population.......................................................................................... 4-17
Table 4-14. Coos County Non-Farm Employment Data ............................................................. 4-17
Table 4-15. Coos County Journey-to-Work Trips ....................................................................... 4-18
Table 4-16. Coos County Travel Time to Work .......................................................................... 4-19
Table 4-17. Coos County Departure to Work ............................................................................ 4-19
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
Table of Contents iv
Table 5-1. Coos County Population and Employment Forecasts ................................................. 5-1
Table 5-2. Summary of Two-Lane Highway Operations – Future Condition (2030).................... 5-5
Table 5-3. Summary of Intersection Operations – Future Condition (2030) ............................... 5-6
Table 6-1. County Road Rural Design Standards ......................................................................... 6-3
Table 6-2. County Road Design Standards – Within UGBs and Urban Unincorporated
Communities ........................................................................................................ 6-3
Table 6-3. State Highways Classification ...................................................................................... 6-5
Table 6-4. Proposed Roadway Surface Improvements ................................................................ 6-8
Table 6-5. State Highway Segments to be Improved .................................................................. 6-9
Table 6-6. County Bridges to be Rehabilitated or Replaced ...................................................... 6-10
Table 6-7. State Bridges to be Rehabilitated or Replaced ......................................................... 6-11
Table 6-8. Natural Hazards Mitigation ....................................................................................... 6-12
Table 6-9. Roadway Safety Projects – State Highways .............................................................. 6-13
Table 6-10. County Road Safety ................................................................................................. 6-15
Table 6-11. Other System Improvements .................................................................................. 6-16
Table 6-12. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ................................................................... 6-17
Table 6-13. Public Transportation Improvements ..................................................................... 6-18
Table 7-1. Coos County Road Revenue Sources, Fiscal Years 2008-2011 ................................... 7-1
Table 7-2. County TSP Project Cost Summary ............................................................................ 7-2
Table 7-3. County TSP Project Cost Summary ............................................................................ 7-3
Table 7-4. County Revenues and Expenses, Fiscal Years 2011-2015: High Priority Projects ...... 7-4
Table 7-5. Medium- and Long-Term Estimated County Revenues and Expenses ....................... 7-5
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows Page
Table of Contents v
Figure 1-1. Existing Roadway Network (State and County) ......................................................... 1-1
Figure 1-2. Coos County General Zoning and Urban Growth Boundaries ................................... 1-1
Figure 3-1. Coos County Functional Classification ....................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2. Coos County Bridge Inventory ................................................................................. 3-10
Figure 3-3. Coos County Bicycle and Pedestrian System ........................................................... 3-13
Figure 3-4. Coos County Air, Rail, and Water Systems .............................................................. 3-15
Figure 4-1. 2008 Average Daily Traffic Volumes in Coos County ................................................. 4-1
Figure 4-2. 2003-2007 Crashes by Collision Type: County Roadways ......................................... 4-9
Figure 4-3. 2003-2007 Crashes by Collision Type: State Highways ........................................... 4-10
Figure 4-4. Identified Safety Locations ...................................................................................... 4-10
Figure 5-1. 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes in Coos County ................................................. 5-2
Figure 6-1. Coos County Functional Classification ....................................................................... 6-2
Figure 6-2: Coos County Street Standards ................................................................................... 6-2
Figure 6-3: Coos County Street Standards Within UGBs and Urban Unincorporated
Communities ........................................................................................................ 6-3
Figure 6-4: Pavement Improvement Projects .............................................................................. 6-8
Figure 6-5: Bridge Improvement Projects .................................................................................. 6-10
Figure 6-6: Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects ......................................................................... 6-12
Figure 6-7: Roadway Safety Projects ......................................................................................... 6-13
Figure 6-8: Other System Improvement Projects ...................................................................... 6-16
Figure 6-9: Bicycle and Pedestrian System Improvement Projects ........................................... 6-17
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Table of Contents vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
CAC Citizen Advisory Committee
CCAT Coos County Area Transit
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CORP Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad
DHV Design Hourly Volume
FTA Federal Transit Authority
HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HDM Highway Design Manual
HEP Hazard Elimination Program
IOF Immediate Opportunity Fund
JTA Jobs and Transportation Act
LID Local Improvement Districts
LOS Level of Service
MP Milepoint
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NBI National Bridge Inventory
OAR Oregon Administrative Rule
OCBR Oregon Coast Bike Route
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
OEA Office of Economic Analysis
OED Oregon Employment Department
OHP Oregon Highway Plan
ORS Oregon Revised Statutes
OTIA Oregon Transportation Investment Act
PCI Pavement Condition Index
SDC System Development Charge
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SIP Safety Investment Program
SPIS Safety Priority Index System
SPWF Special Public Works Fund
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
STP Surface Transportation Program
SWORA Southwest Oregon Regional Airport
TAC Transportation Advisory Committee
TPAU Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
TPR Transportation Planning Rule
TSP Transportation System Plan
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
V/C Volume-to-Capacity
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Introduction 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Coos County Transportation System Plan (TSP) guides the management of existing
transportation facilities and the design and implementation of future facilities for the next 20
years. This Transportation System Plan constitutes the transportation element of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan and satisfies the requirements of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule
established by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. It identifies and
prioritizes transportation projects for inclusion in the Oregon Department of Transportation’s
(ODOT’s) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Study Area
Figure 1-1 shows a map of Coos County, including boundaries for each incorporated city. The
study area for the TSP includes all areas of the county lying outside of city urban growth
boundaries (UGBs). The roadway network within Coos County serves many modes of travel,
including motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and freight. It connects communities,
serves adjacent land uses, and provides access to other modes of travel as well.
Topographically, Coos County is a complex mix of undulating mountains and winding rivers. In
this rugged terrain, the road development typically follows the natural course of least
resistance. Thus, many roads follow streams and rivers as they wind from their sources to their
deltas. The riverbeds provided flatter areas within which to build roads and it was quite natural
for the roadway network to follow these areas.
Figure 1-2 illustrates the general zoning in Coos County. The majority of the county is zoned as
resource lands (Forest, Exclusive Agriculture, Open Space/Natural Use) but there is some land
zoned for development (Commercial Industrial, Rural Residential, Resort), particularly close in
to the cities.
Planning Process
The Coos County TSP was developed through a series of technical analyses combined with
systematic input and review by the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC), ODOT, and the public. The committees consisted of staff, elected and
appointed officials, residents, and business people from the county.
Key elements of the process include:
• Existing Plans Policies Review (Appendix)
• Goals and Objectives (Chapter 2)
• Existing Transportation System Inventory and Deficiencies (Chapters 3 and 4)
• Future Transportation System Deficiencies(Chapter 5)
• Transportation System Plan (Chapter 6)
• Funding Options and Financing Plan (Chapter 7)
1-1
1-2
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Introduction 1-2
Once adopted, the TSP will bring the county into compliance with the Transportation Planning
Rule (TPR). In addition to the plan document, the necessary comprehensive plan amendments
and supporting ordinances to implement the TSP will be identified. This will help Coos County
to more effectively focus on identified goals and objectives by establishing a consistent
planning framework in alignment with community and state goals and policies.
Community Involvement
Community involvement is an integral component in the development of a TSP. Several
different techniques were utilized to involve the local jurisdictions, ODOT, and the general
public.
A Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) provided guidance on technical issues and
direction regarding policy issues to the consultant team. Staff members from the local
jurisdictions and ODOT served on this committee. This group met six times during the course of
the project.
A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) comprised of local stakeholders from businesses, the
public, and agencies, also provided input and feedback. This group was contacted at the
beginning of the project to discuss transportation needs and issues facing Coos County, and
also at key milestones throughout the planning process.
Another part of the community involvement effort consisted of community meetings within
Coos County. During these meetings, the general public was invited to learn about the TSP
planning process and provide input on transportation issues and concerns.
Goals and Objectives
Based on input from the TAC and stakeholders, goals and objectives were defined for the TSP.
These goals and objectives were used to make decisions about various potential improvement
projects. They are described in Chapter 3.
Review of Existing Plans and Policies
To begin the planning process, all applicable Coos County transportation and land use plans and
policies were reviewed and an inventory of public facilities was conducted. The purpose of
these efforts was to understand the history of transportation planning in the county, including
the street system improvements planned and implemented in the past, and how the county is
currently managing its ongoing development. Existing plans and policies are described in the
Appendix of this report.
The following state documents were reviewed as they relate to the development of TSPs or
Coos County transportation facilities:
• Transportation Planning Rule - Statewide Planning Goal 12 and OAR 660, Division 12
• OAR 734, Division 51 (Highway Approaches, Access Control, Spacing Standards and
Medians) (Amended 2007)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Introduction 1-3
• Oregon Transportation Plan (2006)
• Oregon Highway Plan (1999, Amended July 2006)
• Highway Design Manual (HDM) (2003, Revised 2008)
• Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995)
• Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan (2004)
• Oregon Aviation Plan (2000)
• Oregon Rail Plan (2001)
• Oregon Public Transportation Plan (1997)
• Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (2010 – 2013)
Existing Transportation System Inventory
The inventory of existing facilities catalogs all modes of transportation in the current system.
The results of the inventory are described in Chapter 3, while Chapter 4 describes how the
system operates.
Future Transportation System Demands
The TPR requires the TSP to address a 20-year forecasting period. The overall forecasting
process and identified deficiencies are described in Chapter 5.
Transportation System Plan
The Transportation System Plan addresses each mode of transportation and provides an overall
implementation program. The street system plan was developed from the forecasting and
potential improvement evaluation described above. The bicycle and pedestrian plans were
developed based on current usage, land use patterns, and the requirements set forth by the
Transportation Planning Rule. The public transportation, air, water, rail, and pipeline plans
were developed based on discussions with the owners and operators of those facilities.
Chapter 6 details the plan elements for each mode.
Funding Options
Coos County has developed a financially-feasible and prioritized list of transportation projects
to implement over the 20-year planning period. Chapter 7 summarizes existing budgets;
funding sources available from the local, state and federal levels of government; and the
appropriateness of the available sources to fund specific projects. This is followed by a funding
strategy intended to assist Coos County’s to fund the recommended facility improvements.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Goals and Objectives 2-1
2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Coos County Comprehensive Plan includes the following transportation goal:
“Coos County shall strive to provide and encourage a transportation system that
promotes safety and convenience for citizens and travelers and that strengthens the
local and regional economy by facilitating the flow of goods and services.”
This overarching Comprehensive Plan goal provides a summary of who is served by the county
transportation system and how the transportation service should be provided. Citizens of the
county, travelers to and through the area, and freight transporters must all be served by the
system and, although not specifically called out, all modes of travel should be safe and as
convenient as possible.
The goals and objectives in this TSP provide the guiding principles for the planning and
management of the Coos County transportation system. They were developed from the overall
transportation goal and applicable county and state land use and transportation planning
regulations.
Goal 1: Mobility
Plan and develop a roadway system that links communities, neighborhoods, and businesses and
addresses the existing and future transportation needs of moving both people and goods in
throughout the region.
Objectives:
• Provide an interconnected street network that allows for reasonably direct travel and
identifies and establishes parallel routes for highway facilities during periods of high
demand or when slides/geological hazards affect through traffic operations.
• Establish operational standards that can be used to identify and prioritize how and
where transportation funds should be invested in maintaining and improving the
transportation network.
• Establish street standards and the procedures for enforcing compliance through county
ordinance and code.
• Maintain existing roadways and identify improvements to address existing operational
and safety deficiencies.
• Facilitate freight travel by identifying key freight routes and maintaining efficient
through movement in these corridors.
• Maintain roadways that serve as school bus routes to minimize service and safety
impacts due to poor road surface conditions.
• Require consideration of project elements, such as culverts and raised road beds that
would address flood plain issues during new construction and roadway improvement
projects.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Goals and Objectives 2-2
• Provide for future growth through planning and management of the transportation
system.
• Consider the transportation needs of both local and regional travelers (tourists) in the
County.
• Promote intergovernmental coordination among Coos County, the Oregon Department
of Transportation, the US Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration, and all
the cities within Coos County.
Goal 2: Multimodal System
Provide a multimodal transportation system that accommodates the needs of all users
Objectives:
• Support efforts to maintain current transit service and plan for future expanded transit
service by sustaining funding and seeking consistent state support.
• Plan safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian networks that connect between
residential area, schools, and other activity centers.
• Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian elements, such as sidewalks and bike lanes or
shoulders, in roadway upgrades.
• Protect and enhance airport facilities by developing regulations to reduce hazards and
promote compatible land uses in surrounding areas and coordinating with the Oregon
Department of Aviation, Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, other regional, local, and
remote aviation facilities, and affected cities.
• Preserve and enhance the existing rail corridor between Eugene and the Bunker Hill
industrial area through cooperation with the Oregon Rail Division and the Port of Coos
Bay.
• Support opportunities for developing intermodal connections between rail, highway,
and water facilities with particular focus on enhancing development of Port of Coos Bay
facilities.
Goal 3: Livability
Provide a transportation system that enhances community livability and promotes economic
development while minimizing environmental impacts.
Objectives:
• Minimize congestion on major travel routes by maximizing efficiency of the existing
system, providing a network of travel routes, and encouraging the use of alternative
modes of travel.
• Balance the need for accessibility to adjacent land uses with the need to provide
capacity on major travel routes.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Goals and Objectives 2-3
• Protect natural features and historic sites, preserve agricultural and forest lane, and
avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts associated with transportation projects.
• Work to preserve existing neighborhoods when developing roadway capacity
improvements.
• Coordinate land use and transportation planning decisions to maximize the efficiency of
public infrastructure investments.
• Provide a process to educate and involve the public in the planning and funding for
future transportation system improvements.
Goal 4: Safety
Promote the safety of current and future travel modes for all users.
Objectives:
• Provide a transportation system that allows adequate emergency vehicle access to all
land uses.
• Maintain existing emergency routes, including lifeline routes and tsunami evacuation
routes.
• Establish roadway design standards to reduce frequency and severity of motor vehicle
crashes.
• Review crash patterns and implement improvements at locations identified as priority
through the state rating system.
• Identify and improve intermodal conflict points, including rail crossings and pedestrian/
bicycle crossings of major roadways near transit stops, schools, and other activity
centers.
• Coordinate between transportation service providers to identify and address existing
safety concerns and prevent the creation of future conflict points.
Goal 5: Funding
Identify reasonable and equitable funding mechanisms for improvements identified in the TSP
Objectives
• Develop a financing program that establishes priorities and identifies funding
mechanisms for implementation.
• Seek long-term funding source(s) for basic roadway maintenance.
• Require development to mitigate direct traffic impacts and establish the mechanisms for
enforcing compliance through county ordinance and code.
• Consider the creation of a traffic impact fee program or system development charge to
address the indirect traffic impacts on the transportation system created by new
development.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Goals and Objectives 2-4
• Allow formation of road districts to upgrade transportation facilities.
• Coordinate with state and federal agencies and take advantage of funding programs for
roadway improvements.
• Work with local jurisdictions to establish cooperative road improvement programs and
jurisdictional transfers within urban growth areas.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-1
3. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INVENTORY
Chapter 3 contains an update of the inventory of existing transportation system so that the TSP
will reflect current conditions. This inventory reviews the roadway system as well as the
pedestrian, bikeway, public transportation, rail, air, water, and pipeline systems as they apply
to Coos County.
Roadway Network
The roadway network serves many modes of travel, including motor vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, transit, and freight. It connects communities, serves adjacent land uses, and
provides access to other modes of travel as well.
The roadway network within Coos County includes almost 1,900 miles of roadway under five
jurisdictions: County, State, US Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The breakdown of roadways by surface type and jurisdiction
is summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Summary of Roadway Mileage by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Unpaved Asphalt Concrete Total
State Highways1 0.20 157.49 3.36 161.05
Coos County2 187.96 340.88 0.34 529.18
Bureau of Land Management1 892.00 212.00 0.00 1104.00
US National Forest1 30.00 52.00 0.00 82.00
Bureau of Indian Affairs1 9.00 1.00 0.00 10.00
Total 1119.16 763.37 3.70 1886.23
Notes:
1. 2007 Oregon Mileage Report. The report indicates 334.12 total add and non-add lane miles of State
Highways in Coos County
2. Coos County Road Department, January 2, 2002
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns approximately 161 miles of roadway
within the County, including the most heavily traveled routes. With the exception of a short
section of OR 241, the highways are all paved. The state highways link Coos County with other
areas of the state as well as provide regional connections between communities.
Coos County owns and maintains approximately 529 miles of roadway and almost 65 percent
(341 miles) of the county roads have a paved surface. Fewer than 8 miles of the county
roadway network lies within city boundaries.
The BLM and USFS own a combined 1,186 miles of roadway within the county, almost 63
percent of the total county mileage. Most of these roadways are gravel and serve the forest
lands that dominate the county. These roadways are primarily used to access recreational and
logging areas and provide emergency fire access. This TSP does not include any further
description of BLM or USFS roads.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-2
The BIA owns 10 miles of roadway within the County. These lands lie within the reservation
boundaries of the Coquille Tribe.
County Roads
While the state highway system forms the backbone of the roadway network in Coos County,
county roads are a vital part of the circulation system. Coos County owns and maintains 236
roads totaling approximately 529 miles of roadway.
Functional Classification
The functional classification system for the Coos County roadway network includes arterials,
major collectors, minor collectors, and local streets. Coos County recently upgraded the
functional classification of a number of roadways for consistency with current uses or with state
classifications. The functional classification of the county network, including these recent
upgrades, is shown in Figure 3-1.
The state highway system described previously serves as the arterial network within Coos
County. They provide a continuous road system that distributes traffic between cities and also
serves as the primary arterial corridors within cities. Although the County has no direct control
over the state highways within its boundaries, the highways heavily influence traffic patterns
and development.
The existing TSP describes collectors as streets connecting residential neighborhoods with
smaller community centers and facilities, as well as providing access to the arterial system.
Property access is generally a higher priority for collectors while through traffic movements are
served as a lower priority. The county further breaks the collector category into major and
minor collectors.
Major collectors generally serve higher traffic demands. They tie federal roads, minor
collectors, and local roads to the arterial system. These roads also provide access to
agricultural, forest, and recreational areas. As shown in Table 3-2, Coos County has 38 major
collectors totaling approximately 217 miles of roadway. All of the major collectors are at least
partially paved and 31 are paved their entire length. Most of the paved major collectors are
between 17 and 25 feet wide which does not allow for much paved shoulder, thus any bicycles
or pedestrians must share the travel lane with motorized vehicles.
3-1
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-3
Table 3-2. Major Collectors in Coos County
Alphabetical Listing
(New 911 Names)
Length (miles) Constructed Width (feet) Right-of-Way Width (feet)
Paved Gravel Paved Gravel Paved Gravel
Airport Way 0.7 - 24 - 60 -
Beach Loop Road 2.6 - 24 - 60 -
Beaver Hill Lane 1.7 - 24 - 60 -
Catching Slough Road 6.7 - 19-23 - 60 -
Coos-Sumner Lane 4.1 - 24 - 60-80 -
East Bay Road 7.9 - 24-25 - 50-60 -
Fairview - Sumner Lane 3.9 4.4 20 40 40 40
Fairview Road 15.5 - 24-42 - 60 -
Fishtrap Road 6.1 - 20-32 - 60 -
Lampa Lane 12.4 - 21-23 - 40-60 -
Landrith Road 1.7 - 21 - 60 -
Libby Lane 5.6 - 24-25 - Min. 60 -
Lone Pine Lane 8.3 - 24 - 40-60 -
Myrtle Creek 4.3 - 22 - 60 -
North 8th St. (Lakeside) 1.0 - 32 - 60 -
North Bank Lane 5.3 - 20-24 - 60 -
North Bay Road 5.7 - 22-24 - 60 -
North Lake Lane 4.3 2.2 19-24 30 Min. 60 60-165
Old Broadbent Road 5.1 2.5 21-30 20 40-60 40
Olive Barber Road 3.5 - 24 - 60 -
Parkersburg Road 1.7 2.5 20-21 20 60 40-60
Prosper Junction Road 2.3 - 20 - 40 -
Riverside Drive 1.6 - 22 - 60 -
Rosa Road 4.3 - 22 - 60 -
Sandy Creek Road 2.7 3.3 14-22 22 60 50
Seven Devils Road 11.9 - 20-24 - 60 -
Shelley Road 2.0 - 24 - 60 -
Shinglehouse Road 2.2 - 24-40 - 40-60 -
Shutters Landing Lane 2.8 1.8 23-24 35 60 60
Sitkum Lane 25.0 10.5 20-23 20 40-60 40-60
South 8th St. (Lakeside) 0.3 - 62 - 80 -
South Coos River Lane 9.1 - 17-25 - 60 -
South Powers Road 3.9 - 24 - 60 -
TransPacific Lane 5.5 - 22-38 - 100-150 -
Two-Mile Lane 0.7 - 23 - 60 -
Walker Road 0.1 - 20 - 60 -
West Beaver Hill Road 6.2 - 23-24 - 60 -
West Central 1.2 - 48 - 60-80 -
TOTALS 190.0 27.18
Source: Coos County Road Department, January 2, 2002
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-4
Minor collectors generally serve lower traffic demands than major collectors. They generally
branch off from highway, arterial, or major collector roadways and provide access to
agricultural, forest, recreational areas, and residential homes. As shown in Table 3-3, Coos
County has 8 minor collectors totaling approximately 57 miles of roadway. Five of the 8 minor
collectors are at least partially paved. Most of the paved minor collectors are between 19 and
24 feet wide which does not allow for much paved shoulder, thus any bicycles or pedestrians
must share the travel lane with motorized vehicles.
Table 3-3. Minor Collectors in Coos County
Alphabetical Listing
(New 911 Names)
Length (miles) Constructed Width (feet) Right-of-Way Width (feet)
Paved Gravel Paved Gravel Paved Gravel
Catching Creek Lane 5.8 1.5 21-22 20 40-60 60
Fairview Road - 3.3 22-42 22 40 40
Lee Valley Road 9.0 3.5 21-24 22 60 60
McKinley Lane 0.1 6.5 26 20 40 40
North Bank Lane 12.2 - 20-24 - 60 -
Seven Devils Road - 3.5 20-24 30 60 60
Shutters Landing Lane - 2.9 - 35 - 60
West Fork Millicoma Road 5.3 3.3 19-21 30 40 40
TOTALS 32.5 24.5
Source: Coos County Road Department, January 2, 2002
Local streets, or minor streets as described in the 1999 TSP, primarily serve residential
properties. Property access is the main priority; through traffic movement is not encouraged.
They are designed to carry low traffic volumes. Coos County has 198 local streets totaling
approximately 255 miles of roadway.
Pavement Conditions
Coos County conducted a pavement condition inventory in the spring of 2009 based on the
pavement management software StreetSaver1. The distribution of inventory data in the seven
pavement condition categories used in the county inventory is summarized in Table 3-4.
Approximately 10 percent of the paved roadways in the Coos County system have Poor
pavement conditions and another 1 percent have Very Poor conditions. Major collectors are in
the best condition with only 5 percent in Poor condition and 0 percent in Very Poor condition.
Minor collectors have the greatest percentage of road surface in Poor condition (20 percent)
but none in Very Poor condition.
1 StreetSaver® Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Pavement Management Software, v.8.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-5
Table 3-4. Pavement Conditions Inventory – County Roads
Pavement Condition
Major
Collector
(miles)
Minor
Collector
(miles)
Local
(miles)
Total
(miles)
Excellent (PCI: 85-100) 5% 6% 2% 4%
Very Good (PCI: 70-85) 32% 10% 23% 27%
Good (PCI: 55-70) 26% 12% 25% 24%
Fair (PCI: 40-55) 32% 53% 34% 34%
Poor (PCI: 25-40) 5% 20% 15% 10%
Very Poor (PCI: 10-25) 0% 0% 2% 1%
Failed (PCI: 0-10) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Acronym: PCI = Pavement Condition Index ranking
Source: Coos County Road Department, May 2009.
Major and minor collector roadways with some portion of the paved surface in Poor condition
are listed in Table 3-5. The roadway with the longest section of Poor pavement conditions is
North Bank Lane. Lampa Lane, Old Broadbent Road, Seven Devils Road, and Sitkum Lane all
have more than a mile of Poor pavement.
Table 3-5. County Roads with Poor Pavement Conditions
Major Collector Roadways Minor Collector Roadways
Name Length (miles) Name Length (miles)
Beach Loop Road 0.72 North Bank Lane 5.6
Lampa Lane 1.32 West Fork Millicoma Road 0.5
North Bank Lane 1.30
Old Broadbent Road 2.09
Seven Devils Road 1.90
Shelley Road 0.88
Sitkum Lane 1.87
Source: Coos County Road Department, May 2009.
State Highways
State highways form the primary road network within and through Coos County. They provide
a continuous road system that distributes traffic between cities and also serves as the primary
arterial corridors within cities. Although the County has no direct control over the state
highways within its boundaries, the highways heavily influence traffic patterns and
development.
Coos County is served by the six state highways listed in Table 3-6 and shown in Figure 3-1.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-6
Table 3-6. State Highways
Number Name
State
Classification
State
Freight
Route
Federally
Designated
Truck
Route
Scenic
Byway
National
Highway
System Miles
US 1015 Oregon Coast Highway Statewide Yes
1 Yes Yes Yes 53.41
OR 425 Coos Bay-Roseburg Highway Statewide Yes Yes
2 No Yes 42.63
OR 42S Coquille-Bandon Highway District No No No No 16.93
OR 241 Coos River Highway District3 No No No Yes
3 17.45
OR 540 Cape Arago Highway District No No Yes4 No 11.95
OR 542 Powers Highway District No No No No 18.68
Notes:
1. US 101 is a freight route from the Coos-Douglas County Line at milepost 220.58 to the junction with OR 42 at milepost 244.27.
2. OR 42 is a federally designated truck route from US 101 at milepost 0.0 to the junction with OR 42S at milepost 10.85. The designation of
through truck routes help provide for the efficient movement of goods while balancing and maintaining neighborhood livability, public
safety, and minimizing maintenance costs of the roadway system.
3. OR 241 is a statewide highway at the junction with US 101 and is part of the National Highway System from US 101 at to the Bunker Hill
Industrial Area access on Mullen Road.
4. OR 540 is a scenic byway from Shore Edge Drive at milepost 8.74 to the end of the highway at Cape Arago State Park.
5. The OHP classifies US 101 as an Expressway from 1st Street in Coos Bay (MP 239.89) to the junction with OR 42 (MP 244.27). The OHP
classifies OR 42 as an Expressway from the junction with OR 42 (MP 0) to West Central Street in Coquille (MP 9.97) and then again from
Filter Plant Road in Coquille (MP 13.19) to Ash Street in Myrtle Point (MP 20.53).
Source: 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, July 2006.
U.S. Highway 101 (Oregon Coast Highway)
US 101 runs north-south along the Oregon coast traversing Coos County from Douglas County
to Curry County. The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) designates US 101 within Coos County as a
Statewide Highway and Scenic Byway. US 101 is part of a state freight route system that
connects part of the Oregon Coast with Interstate 5 (I-5). The US 101 portion of the freight
route extends from Florence to south of Coos Bay and connects with three east-west freight
routes between I-5 and US 101: OR 126 from Eugene to Florence, OR 38 from about 30 miles
south of Eugene to Reedsport, and OR 42 from south of Coos Bay to Roseburg. The OHP
classifies US 101 as an Expressway from 1st Street in Coos Bay (MP 239.89) to the junction with
OR 42 (MP 244.27). It is also a federally designated truck route and part of the National
Highway System.
US 101 is generally a two-lane facility in the rural areas with posted speeds at 55 miles per hour
(mph) except for a number of speed zones at junctions and service centers. It has few raised
medians on the rural sections of highway. Outside of the North Bend/Coos Bay and Bandon
urbanized areas, zoning adjacent to US 101 includes Rural Residential, Rural Industrial,
Agricultural, Forest and Rural Service Center, as shown in Figure 1-2.
OR Highway 42 (Coos-Roseburg Highway)
OR 42 is a Statewide Highway which begins at the junction with US 101 approximately five miles
south of Coos Bay, and traverses the Coast Range, passing through Coquille and Myrtle Point
then continuing into Douglas County where it connects with I-5 south of Roseburg. OR 42 is
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-7
part of the freight route that extends from I-5 to the Oregon Coast and also includes part of US
101 and OR 38. This route, along with OR 38, forms a regional transportation system between
I-5 and US 101 that serves both personal and freight travel (ODOT, OR 38/42 Corridor Plans,
2001, p.2-1). The OHP classifies OR 42 as an Expressway from the junction with OR 42 (MP 0) to
West Central Street in Coquille (MP 9.97) and then again from Filter Plant Road in Coquille
(MP 13.19) to Ash Street in Myrtle Point (MP 20.53). OR 42 is also part of the National Highway
System and is a federally designated truck route from US 101 (MP 0) to the junction with
OR 42S (MP 14).
OR 42 varies from two to four lanes from its junction with US 101 through the cities of Coquille
and Myrtle Point. East of Myrtle Point, it is primarily two lanes. Outside the cities of Myrtle
Point and Coquille, OR 42 runs through agricultural, rural residential, and forest lands.
OR Highway 42S (Coquille-Bandon Highway)
OR 42S is a District Highway which begins at the junction with US 101 in Bandon and extends
eastward to the junction with OR 42 south of Coquille.
OR 42S is a two-lane facility with a posted speed of 55 mph in the rural areas and 45 mph
approaching Bandon where it joins with US 101. Between Coquille and Bandon, OR 42S runs
through agricultural, rural residential, and forest lands.
OR Highway 241 (Coos River Highway)
OR 241 is classified as a District Highway in the OHP with the exception of a short section at its
junction with US 101 in the Bunker Hill area in Coos Bay, which is classified as a Statewide
Highway. A portion of the highway from US 101 to Mullen Road is designated as part of the
National Highway System as it provides intermodal access to the Bunker Hill Industrial Area.
From Bunker Hill, OR 241 runs through the eastside section of Coos Bay, and continues to the
community of Allegany. A 1.51-mile section of OR 241 is under Coos Bay jurisdiction.
OR 241 is a two-lane facility with a posted speed of 55 mph beyond the Coos Bay city limits.
East of Coos Bay, OR 241 runs through agricultural and forest lands.
OR Highway 540 (Cape Arago Highway)
OR 540 runs from downtown North Bend through Coos Bay then south through the community
of Charleston to Cape Arago State Park. It is classified as a District Highway in the OHP and is
designated as a scenic byway from Shore Edge Drive (milepost 8.74) to the state park. A 2.25-
mile section of OR 540 is under Coos Bay jurisdiction.
OR 540 is a four-lane facility within North Bend and Coos Bay but outside the city limits, it is a
two-lane facility. Posted speed is 40 mph from Coos Bay to the community of Charleston,
where the posted speed drops to 35 mph. South of Charleston, the posted speed is 45 mph
until the state park, where the posted speed varies from 25 to 35 mph. The adjacent lands are
primarily zoned rural service center and park.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-8
State Highway 542 (Powers Highway)
OR 542 connects OR 42 south of Myrtle Point to Powers. It is classified as a District Highway in
the OHP with no other special designations.
OR 542 is a two-lane facility with no medians or turn lanes and a posted speed of 55 mph
except within the city of Powers. Outside the city limits, OR 542 travels through primarily lands
zoned for agricultural uses.
Pavement Conditions
The ODOT Pavement Services Unit surveyed pavement conditions on the highway system in
2008. The five pavement condition categories used include: Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, and
Very Poor2. With the exception or structures, the state highway surfaces in Coos County are
asphalt concrete pavement. The rating definitions for asphalt concrete are summarized below:
• Very Good – Stable, no creaking, no patching, and no deformation. Excellent riding
qualities. Nothing would improve the roadway at this time
• Good – Stable, minor cracking, generally hairline and hard to detect. Minor patching
and possibly some minor deformation evident. May have dry or light colored
appearance. Very good riding qualities. Rutting may be present but is less than ½ inch.
• Fair – Generally stable, minor areas of structural weakness evident. Cracking is easier to
detect, patched but not excessively. Deformation more pronounced and easily noticed.
Ride qualities are good to acceptable. Rutting may be present but is less than ¾ inch.
• Poor – Areas of instability marked evidence of structural deficiency, large crack patterns
(alligatoring), heavy and numerous patches, deformation very noticeable. Riding
qualities range from acceptable to poor. When rutting is present, rut depth is greater
than ¾ inch.
• Very Poor – Pavement in extremely deteriorated condition. Numerous areas of
instability. Majority of section showing structural deficiency. Ride quality is
unacceptable (probably should slow down).
Table 3-7 summarizes the pavement conditions by roadway section for the portions of the state
highways in Coos County which lie outside city limits.
Excluding structures and sections currently under construction, approximately 65 percent of the
state highways that lie within Coos County and outside city limits are rated as having pavement
that is in Good or Very Good condition. Another 25 percent is rated as Fair. The remaining 10
percent is rated as Poor with no sections rated at Very Poor.
2 Definitions of the pavement condition categories can be found in the ODOT, Pavement Services Unit, 2008 Pavement
Condition Report, Appendix E which can be found at the following internet address:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/CONSTRUCTION/docs/pavement/2008_pavement_condition_report_maps.pdf
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-9
Table 3-7. Pavement Conditions Inventory – State Highways
Route Section Name
Begin
Milepost
End
Milepost Length Rating 2008
US 101 Douglas County Line - Tugman State Park 220.58 221.26 0.68 Good
US 101 Tugman State Park – Spinreel Road 221.26 224.40 3.14 Fair
US 101 Spinreel Road - McCullough Bridge 224.40 233.48 9.08 Very Good
US 101 McCullough Bridge (North Bend City Limits) 233.48 234.03 0.55 Structure
US 101 Coos Bay South City Limits - Lorain Avenue 239.22 240.42 1.20 Under Construction
US 101 Lorain Avenue - Davis Slough 240.42 244.82 4.40 Good-Very Good
US 101 Davis Slough - Bullards Bridge 244.82 259.58 14.76 Fair
US 101 Bullards Bridge 259.58 259.72 0.14 Structure
US 101 Bullards Bridge - Bandon North City Limits 259.72 261.20 1.48 Good
US 101 Bandon South City Limits - Two Mile Road 277.84 278.30 0.46 Good
US 101 Two Mile Road - Laurel Grove 278.30 280.62 2.32 Poor
US 101 Laurel Grove – Bethel Creek 280.62 284.80 4.18 Good
US 101 Bethel Creek - Butte Creek 284.80 285.50 0.70 Poor
US 101 Butte Creek – Curry County Line 285.50 285.78 0.28 Fair
OR 42 Junction US 101 - Delmar Lane (EB) 0.00 2.70 2.70 Very Good
OR 42 Delmar Lane - Overland Lane 2.70 3.98 1.28 Good
OR 42 Overland Lane - Coquille City Limits 3.98 9.68 5.70 Very Good
OR 42 Coquille City Limits – Glen Aiken Creek 12.80 15.20 2.40 Good
OR 42 Glen Aiken Creek - N. Fork Coquille River 15.20 19.34 4.14 Very Good
OR 42 N. Fork Coquille River Bridge 19.34 19.61 0.27 Structure
OR 42 N. Fork Coquille River - Myrtle Point City Limits 19.61 20.01 0.40 Very Good
OR 42 Myrtle Point City Limits – Junction OR 542 21.83 23.65 1.82 Very Good
OR 42 Junction OR 542 - Douglas County Line 23.65 44.95 21.30 Good
OR 42S Bandon East City Limits - Bear Creek Rd 0.18 3.10 2.92 Good
OR 42S Bear Creek Rd – Junction OR 42 3.10 16.94 13.84 Fair
OR 241 Junction US 101 - 16th Ave 0.00 0.72 0.72 Poor
OR 241 Begin State Jurisdiction - Catching Slough 2.19 2.30 0.11 Structure
OR 241 Catching Slough - Chandler Bridge 2.30 3.62 1.32 Fair
OR 241 Chandler Bridge 3.62 3.80 0.18 Structure
OR 241 Chandler Bridge - Boat Kruse Rd 3.80 15.05 11.25 Good
OR 241 Kruse Rd - End of Pavement 15.05 18.95 3.90 Poor
OR 540 Begin State Jurisdiction - Sunset Bay State Park 4.49 10.94 6.45 Poor
OR 540 Sunset Bay State Park - Cape Arago 10.94 14.15 3.21 Very Good
OR 542 Junction OR 42 – Milepost 8 Slide Section 0.00 8.00 8.00 Good
OR 542 Milepost 8 Slide Section 8.00 8.65 0.65 Poor
OR 542 Milepost 8 Slide Section - Coq Myrtle Gr. S.P. 8.65 10.17 1.52 Fair
OR 542 Coq Myrtle Gr. S.P. - S. Fork Coquille River 10.17 17.00 6.83 Good
OR 542 Powers Bridge - Powers City Limits 17.10 17.52 0.42 Under Construction
Source: ODOT, Pavement Services Unit, 2008 Pavement Condition Report
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-10
Four of the six highways had sections with Poor pavement conditions. US 101 has two sections
totaling approximately 3 miles at the southern end of the county with Poor ratings. OR 241 has
two sections with Poor rating: one 0.7-mile section located just east of the Coos Bay city limits
in the Bunker Hill area and the other section of almost 4 miles at the end of the highway, before
it becomes gravel. OR 540 has Poor pavement conditions for a 6.5 mile section from where
state jurisdiction begins just south of the Coos Bay city limits to Sunset Bay State Park. Lastly, a
slide section of OR 542 near milepost 8 is rated as Poor.
Neither OR 42 nor OR 42S have any sections with Poor ratings.
Bridges
The 2008 bridge inventory data for Coos County was obtained from ODOT’s Bridge
Maintenance Section and reviewed. Two mutually exclusive elements are used to rate bridge
conditions: structural deficiency and functional obsolescence. Structural deficiency is
determined based on the condition rating for the deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert
and retaining walls. It may also be based on the appraisal rating of the structural condition or
waterway adequacy. Functional obsolescence is determined based on the appraisal rating for
the bridge deck geometry, underclearances, and approach roadway alignment. It may also be
based on the appraisal rating of the structural condition or waterway adequacy.
The third element used to evaluate bridge conditions is the sufficiency rating, which is a
complex formula that takes into account four separate factors to obtain a numeric value rating
the ability of a bridge to service demand. The result of this method is a percentage in which
100 percent would represent an entirely sufficient bridge and zero percent would represent an
entirely insufficient or deficient bridge. Those bridges with a sufficiency rating of 80 or less are
eligible for rehabilitation. Those bridges with a sufficiency of 50 or less are eligible for
replacement. Bridges lose their eligibility status for a period of ten years after a (Highway
Bridge Program) project is completed.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the location of all bridges in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) and
whether they are identified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
County Bridges
Coos County owns 111 bridges in the NBI system. Of the 111 bridges in Coos County, seven are
identified as functionally obsolete and three are identified as structurally deficient, as listed in
Table 3-8 (please refer to the first paragraph of this Bridges section for definitions of
“structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete”). None of the county bridges have posted
weight restrictions.
In addition to those bridges identified with deficiencies, 41 others are identified as not deficient
but have sufficiency ratings that indicate they are eligible for replacement (3 bridges) or
rehabilitation (38 bridges).
3-2
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-11
Table 3-8. Functionally Obsolete and Structurally Deficient County Bridges
Bridge ID Milepoint Name
FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE BRIDGES
11C13A 3.90 Two Mile Creek, County Rd 11G (Two Mile Lane)
11C43A 5.75 Myrtle Point, County Rd 32 (Myrtle Point Road)
11C87U 0.05 East Fork Coquille River, County Rd 132 (Crosby Road)
11C42D 0.10 Blackmoor/Larson Creek, County Rd 248G (Blackmore)
11C761 0.04 South Fork Coquille River, County Rd 902M
11C20 4.85 West Fork Millicoma, County Rd 47 (West Fork Millicoma Road)
11C17I 0.01 Glenn Creek, County Rd 49G (East Fork Road)
STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES
08926 0.72 Beaver Creek, County Rd 5A (North Bank Lane)
15409 5.79 Fish Trap Creek, FAS A417 (Robison)
16349 0.00 South Fork Coquille River, County Rd 153G (Gaylord Road)
Source: ODOT, Bridge Maintenance Section
State Bridges
The state owns and maintains 56 bridges located on state highways in both rural and urban
Coos County. The bridges are distributed among the six highways within the county as follows:
• 14 bridges located on US 101
• 24 bridges located on OR 42
• 7 bridges located on OR 42S
• 6 bridges located on OR 241
• 2 bridges on OR 540
• 3 bridges on OR 542
Of the 56 state bridges in Coos County, eight are identified as functionally obsolete and nine are
identified as structurally deficient, as listed in Table 3-9. Only one structurally deficient bridge
has posted weight restrictions: the OR 241 Bridge over Isthmus Slough (#01132F).
In addition to those bridges identified with deficiencies, 16 others are identified as not deficient
but have sufficiency ratings that indicate they are eligible for replacement (1 bridge) or
rehabilitation (15 bridges).
According to the 2008 Bridge Condition Report, Appendix E3, a $35 million rehabilitation project
funded through the STIP program is underway on the functionally obsolete McCullough Bridge
on US 101 (#01823). Appendix F of the report identifies project programmed through 2011:
• US 101: McCullough Bridge (#01823) – deck rehabilitation – STIP funding
3 2008 Bridge Condition Report, Bridge Engineering Section, Oregon Department of Transportation
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-12
• OR 241: Isthmus Slough Bridge (#01132F) – east approach – STIP funding
• OR 42: Sandy Creek Bridge (#00482B) – earmark funding
• OR 42: Middle Fork Coquille River Bridge (#09185) – earmark funding
• OR 42: Middle Fork Coquille River Bridge (#09186) – earmark funding
• OR 42: Beaver Creek to Middle Fork Coquille River Bridge Bundle (#00559B, #03173A,
#03212A, #08830, #08842, #08843, #08875, #08876, #08935, #08936) – no funding
identified
Table 3-9. Functionally Obsolete and Structurally Deficient State Bridges
Bridge ID Highway Milepoint Name
FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE BRIDGES
01823 US 101 233.99 Coos Bay, US 101 (McCullough)
07020 US 101 259.65 Coquille River, US 101 (Bullards)
08281 OR 42 0.07 OR 42 over US 101 NB
03173B OR 42 5.37 Beaver Creek, OR 42 WB
00598D OR 42S 16.74 Coquille River, OR 42S
02390 OR 241 0.14 OR 241 over CORP
07176 OR 241 3.73 Coos River, OR 241 (Chandler)
01942A OR 542 18.22 S Fork Coquille R, OR 242 at MP 18.22 (Powers)
STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES
03173A OR 42 5.37 Beaver Creek, OR 42 EB
08842 OR 42 23.37 Middle Fork Coquille River, OR 42 at MP 23.37
03212A OR 42 26.72 Endicot Creek, OR 42
08935 OR 42 30.59 Middle Fork Coquille River, OR 42 at MP 30.59
00482B OR 42 37.31 Sandy Creek, OR 42
09185 OR 42 40.56 Middle Fork Coquille River, OR 42 at MP 40.56
09186 OR 42 40.77 Middle Fork Coquille River, OR 42 at MP 40.77
01132F OR 241 0.42 Isthmus Slough, OR 241 (Eastside)
01492A OR 241 14.07 West Fork Millicoma River, OR 241
Source: ODOT, Bridge Maintenance Section
Traffic Control
The vast majority of intersections in Coos County are STOP-controlled outside of the urban
areas. The exceptions on the state highways include the following locations:
• US 101 and Flannagan Road
• US 101 and OR 241 junction
• US 101 and Edwards Road/Ivy Hills Road
• US 101 and East Bay Drive
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-13
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The County-wide bicycle network primarily consists of the Oregon Coast Bike Route (OCBR) and
portions of the state highways (see Figure 3-3). ODOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program has
updated their inventory of facilities on state routes for 2008-09. There is no extensive network
of specifically designated bicycle routes serving Coos County other than the OCBR. There is one
bike lane within the county maintained network, which is on West Central Boulevard in
Coquille. Portions of US 101 and OR 42 in Coos County have existing five-foot wide bike lanes
rated in fair condition. Bike shoulders exist along US 101, OR 42, OR 42S, OR 542 and a short
segment of OR 241. These shoulder segments vary in width from one to eight feet and are in
fair to poor condition. ODOT designates short segments of US 101, OR 540 and OR 542 as
shared roadways. A portion of OR 542 maintains a seven-foot wide blacktop shared use path
listed in fair condition.
In 1991, a Bikeway Master Plan was completed for Coos County to provide guidance for future
bikeway improvements and to enable the County and the seven incorporated cities to be
eligible for funding of specific projects and programs. While the Bikeway Master Plan is
outdated, the existing bicycle system inventory and deficiencies identified in the Plan remain
relevant to current County-wide conditions.
Bike Shoulders
The draft Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan recommends shoulders for bicycle use that are 6
feet wide, although a minimum 4-foot shoulder may be used when there are physical width
limitations. A summary of shoulder widths from the highway inventory database for the six
state highways in Coos County is presented in Table 3-10.
On the highways of statewide significance, US 101 and OR 42, approximately 85 percent of the
roadways have paved shoulders that are 4 feet or wider, which meets the minimum width
recommended in the state plan. Approximately 40 percent of US 101 and 65 percent of OR 42
have shoulders that or 6 feet or wider. The remaining 15 percent of the shoulders that are less
than 4 feet must be considered shared roadway.
Of the district highways the Cape Arago Highway, OR 540, has more than 60 percent of the
paved shoulders at 4 feet or wider. Less than 10 percent of the other highways have shoulders
4 feet or wider. While the district highways have lower volumes than the statewide highways,
the average daily traffic volumes indicate that wider shoulders should be provided.
Most of the paved county roads are between 16 and 25 feet wide which does not allow for
paved shoulder, thus any bicycles or pedestrians must share the travel lane with motorized
vehicles.
3-3
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-14
Table 3-10. Rural Paved Shoulder Inventory on State Highways in Coos County
Miles of Paved Shoulder
Highway Direction 6 feet or wider 4-5 feet Under 4 feet Total
US 101 Northbound 15.08 22.5 5.23 42.81
Southbound 18.87 16.49 7.45 42.81
OR 42 Eastbound 27.49 6.87 5.94 40.3
Westbound 25.26 8.49 6.55 40.3
OR 42S Eastbound 1.15 0.29 15.16 16.6
Westbound 1.15 0.12 15.33 16.6
OR 241 Northeastbound 0.22 0.97 16.49 17.68
Southwestbound 0.39 0.28 17.01 17.68
OR 540 Northeastbound 0.54 5.2 3.92 9.66
Southwestbound 0.83 5.51 3.32 9.66
OR 542 Northbound 0.46 1.06 16 17.52
Southbound 0.46 1.09 15.97 17.52
Source: ODOT State Highway Inventory Reports
Sidewalks
Sidewalks exist along sections of the state highways within the cities but there are few
sidewalks outside city limits with the exception of a few urbanized areas, such as Bunker Hill.
Pedestrians in the rural areas are served by whatever shoulders are available, sharing those
facilities with bicyclists. As noted above, shoulder segments vary in width from one to eight
feet and are in fair to poor condition.
There is one sidewalk within the county maintained network, which in on West Central
Boulevard in Coquille.
Public Transit Services
Overall, there are six public transportation operators in Coos County. These operators and their
services include:
• Coos County Area Transit Service District (CCAT) – Fixed route and demand responsive
services in Coquille, Myrtle Point, Bandon, and Coos Bay/North Bend, with a “Loop Bus”
service around Coos Bay/North Bend.
• Taxi and limousine service is available primarily in the Coos Bay/North Bend area in
conjunction with clientele traveling between the Southwestern Oregon Regional Airport,
located in North Bend, and the Bandon Dunes Golf Resort.
• Region 7 of the Oregon Department of Human Services maintains a volunteer sedan
transportation program for non-emergency medical transportation.
• The Powers Stage is a van service sponsored by the Powers Housing Authority which
connects Powers to the Bay area on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-15
• Curry Public Transit operates a bus service serving Coos County from Brookings to the
Bay area on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
• Greyhound operates commercial bus service seven days/week on Highway 101,
stopping in Brookings, Coos Bay and Reedsport. Ticket service is provided in Coos Bay.
Air Facilities
Table 3-11 lists the public use airports operating in Coos County and general locations are
shown in Figure 3-4. In addition to the four public airports, there are six privately-owned
airfields/airstrips and two private helipads operating in Coos County.
Table 3-11. Coos County Airports
Name Category Category Definition
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport 1 Commercial Service Airport1
Bandon State Airport 4 Community General Aviation Airport2
Lakeside State Airport 5 Low Activity General Aviation Airports3
Powers Airport 5 Low Activity General Aviation Airports3
Notes:
1. Category 1 - Commercial Service Airports - Accommodate scheduled major/national or regional/commuter commercial air carrier service.
2. Category 4 - Community General Aviation Airports - Accommodate general aviation users and local business activities.
3. Category 5 - Low Activity General Aviation Airports - Accommodate limited general aviation use in smaller communities and remote
areas of Oregon.
Source: ODOT, 2000
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport
The Southwest Oregon Regional Airport (SWORA), located in North Bend, is operated by the
Coos County Airport District, which is governed by a Board of five Commissioners elected
county-wide. The airport terminal is approximately 1 mile from US 101. The airport has three
asphalt runways, one of which is no longer in use, and two main parallel taxiways.
Commercial air service is currently provided by United Express. Direct connections to Portland,
Oregon and San Francisco, California are available. Two outbound flights to each of these cities
and two inbound flights from each of these cities are scheduled each day.
SWORA has one fixed base operator providing general aviation services. Coos Aviation
operates from a hangar and buildings at the north end of the airport. They provide
maintenance space, ground handling equipment, fuel service, as well as on-site amenities for
visitors.
The United State Coast Guard runs helicopter operations out of SWORA. They have their own
building and apron south of the terminal building.
Air cargo services are also available at SWORA. FedEx operates out of a hanger northwest of
the terminal building. Other cargo services are provided by United Express and AmeriFlight,
Inc.
3-4
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-16
According to the 2002 North Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan (note: “North Bend Municipal
Airport” is the former name of the SWORA), annual passenger and cargo flights are projected to
increase from 39,016 (year 2000) to 58,100 by 2020.
Bandon State Airport
Bandon State Airport is owned and operated by the Oregon Department of Aviation. It is
located about two miles southeast of Bandon. The airport is usable from dawn to dusk and is
attended from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Fuel is available along with major airframe and power plant
repair service. The runway is 3,600 by 60 feet, surfaced by asphalt in good condition.
Lakeside State Airport
Lakeside State Airport is owned and operated by the City of Lakeside. It is located northwest of
Lakeside. The airport is unattended and no airport services are available. The turf runway
2,150 by 100 feet and is in good condition.
Powers Airport
Powers Airport is owned and operated by the Port of Coquille River, based in Myrtle Point. It is
located about 1 mile southwest of Powers. The airport is unattended and no airport services
are available. The turf runway 2,500 by 60 feet and is in good condition.
Water Facilities
The Port of Coos Bay is the primary center of maritime commerce for Oregon’s South Coast and
is home to Oregon’s largest coastal deep-draft harbor. An average of 2.5 million tons of cargo
moves through the Port of Coos Bay each year. Inbound and outbound cargo is moved through
Coos Bay’s 15-mile channel, which features six marine terminals, seven deep-draft berths and
several barge facilities. The channel is identified in Figure 3-4.
The Port of Bandon, also within Coos County, serves communities (Bandon, Parkersburg,
Prosper, and Riverton) along the Lower Coquille River. In recent years, this port has focused on
accommodating tourism and recreational sport fishing, although it still supports commercial
activities.
The Port of Coquille, positioned on the Coquille River, has historically been used for the
shipment of raw timber. Currently the Port is primarily utilized for recreational activities, such
as fishing and boating.
Rail Facilities
The rail system plays a critical role in the movement of goods within Coos County. In general,
goods arrive at port facilities by rail and are loaded onto ships for export. Imported goods are
received by ships and unloaded onto trucks and train cars to be distributed domestically.
Currently there are no locations within Coos County served by passenger rail service.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Inventory 3-17
Rail service in southwestern Oregon is dominated by the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad
(CORP), which owns and operates on two lines in the region: the Siskiyou Line and the Coos Bay
Branch Line. The Coos Bay Branch Line, which passes through Coos County, is 136 miles long
and extends between Eugene and Coquille. A short spur line, completed in 2005 and owned by
the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, diverges from the branch line and parallels
Transpacific Parkway on the North Spit. The spur line is approximately four miles long and
terminates at the Southport Forest Products mill site.
The Port of Coos Bay acquired most of the Coos Bay Branch Line through a Feeder Line
Application action before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. Financing of the acquisition
was supported by a loan package administered by the Oregon Economic Development
Department. The Port finalized the acquisition of the 111 miles of the CORP Coos Bay line in
March 2009 and in the same month acquired a $2.5 million grant through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which was used for rehabilitation on four
deficient tunnels. In the fall of 2009, the Port also submitted an application to the Connect
Oregon III program for $7.9 million to continue rehabilitation efforts involving swing-span
bridges, other bridges and trestles, rail/ties/ballast, and other rail corridor needs. The Connect
Oregon funds were awarded in August 2010 and work began in fall 2010.
The 2009 Oregon Legislature provided $3.5 million in Oregon Lottery bond funds for the Coos
Bay rail line which was provided to the Port in May 2010. A portion of those funds are currently
being used to continue tunnel rehabilitation, and some funding will help with culvert
rehabilitation. The ODOT Rail Division is working with Port staff on an at-grade roadway/
railroad crossing signal upgrade project funded through the Federal Railroad Administration,
with some funding coming from the ODOT Rail Division. Port staff also has submitted an
application to the federal TIGER II program for funds to upgrade track structure – rail, ties,
ballast and roadbed rehabilitation – to increase the operation velocity of the rail line from
primarily Class 1 (10 mph) to a mix of Class 2 (25 mph) and Class 3 (40 mph).
Pipelines
Coos County currently has its own natural gas pipeline operated by NW Natural Gas. The
pipeline extending from the Coos Bay/North Bend area eastward across the County and
through Douglas County to connect with the Williams’ Northwest Pipeline, which runs north-
south through Oregon extending from the Medford area through Portland and into
Washington. A spur from the pipeline extends southward toward the Bandon area.
In addition to the existing pipeline, the Pacific Connector project would construct a 230-mile
pipeline from the proposed Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas import terminal located on the
north spit in the Port of Coos Bay to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s gas transmission
system, Tuscarora Gas Transmission’s system and Gas Transmission Northwest’s system, all
located near Malin, Oregon, southwest of Klamath Falls. In addition, the project would
interconnect to Williams’ Northwest Pipeline near Myrtle Creek and Avista Corporation’s
distribution system near Shady Cove.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-1
4. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Chapter 4 contains an analysis of current operating conditions for the transportation system.
This evaluation focuses primarily on the street system but does identify gaps in the bicycle and
pedestrian system as well. Census data were examined to determine travel mode distributions.
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume data in Coos County was obtained from a number of ODOT sources and
supplemented with turning movement and road tube traffic counts collected in collected in
early 2009.
Average Daily Traffic
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes reflect the annual average of daily traffic volumes on
roadways throughout the year. They do not reflect seasonal fluctuations or special events. The
ADT represents the typical volume of traffic in all lanes passing a given roadway location in both
directions over a 24-hour period.
The ADT volumes for Coos County were developed from ODOT’s Traffic Volume Tables, data
from ODOT’s automated traffic recorders4 (ATRs), and 24-hour counts collected on some
county roads. All volumes have been estimated for an existing year condition of 2008. At some
locations, this involved growing available data from earlier years to 2008 based on general
growth rates calculated from five-year trends around Coos County.
Figure 4-1 illustrates ADT volumes at key locations on state highways and major county roads.
County Roads
The 2008 ADT volumes on selected roadways in Coos County were estimated from turning
movement data collected at various key intersections around the county. These volumes are
presented in Figure 4-1.
Some of the most heavily used county roads with ADT volumes between 1,000 and 2,500
vehicles per day include:
• East Bay Drive • Seven Devils Road
• Olive Barber Road • Jordan Cove Road
• Wildwood Road • North Bay Road
• Coos-Sumner Lane • Coos River Road
The ADT volumes estimated for other roadways around the county were under 1000 vehicles
per day.
4 Automatic traffic recorders are permanent electronic counting sites located on the state highway system. The recorders
count vehicles continuously throughout the year, enabling ODOT to provide information about hourly, monthly, and yearly
trends as well as a breakdown of vehicles by type (cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, etc.).
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-2
State Highways
The 2007 ADT volumes on the state highways in Coos County were taken from the ODOT 2007
Traffic Volume Tables. Traffic volumes are generally highest near the cities and drop off in rural
sections.
US 101 (Oregon Coast Highway)
Traffic volumes on the sections of US 101 outside cities vary from a low of 4,600 at the Coos-
Curry county line to 26,400 just south of the Coos Bay city limits. Volumes at the north end of
US 101 at the Coos-Douglas county line (M.P. 220.58) are estimated at 7,700 ADT. Moving
southward along the highway, volumes continue to grow until they are almost double (15,000
ADT) at the North Bend city limits. Volumes just south of the Coos Bay city limits are 26,400
ADT but they drop off considerably in less than half a mile; just south of the OR 241 junction,
ADT is 17,500. Volumes drop again dramatically just south of the OR 42 junction with ADT at
6,100. They increase slightly near Bandon (6,300 ADT) but drop to their lowest level (4,600
ADT) at the Coos-Curry county line (M.P. 285.78).
OR 42 (Coos Bay-Roseburg) Highway
Outside city limits, traffic volumes on the sections of OR 42 vary from a high of 10,600 ADT, just
east of the junction with US 101, to a low of 3,000 ADT at the Coos-Douglas county line.
OR 42S (Coquille-Bandon Highway)
Traffic volumes on OR 42S are highest just east of Bandon with an ADT of 4,100. They drop off
to a low of 1,200 ADT between Bandon and Coquille and then increase as they approach the
Coquille city limits with an ADT of 2,300.
OR 241 (Coos River Highway)
Traffic volumes are highest on the section of OR 241 between US 101 and where it enters the
Coos Bay city limits with 9,400 ADT. After exiting Coos Bay, the ADT is 4,100 dropping to
around 1,000 ADT over the next two miles and continuing to decrease to the end of the
roadway.
OR 540 (Cape Arago Highway)
At the south city limits of Coos Bay, the traffic volumes on OR 540 are approximately 9,000 ADT.
Going southward, they drop to approximately 5,000 ADT in the community of Charleston and
then drop further to 1,100 ADT at the entrance to the state parks.
OR 542 (Powers Highway)
Traffic volumes on OR 542 are highest just south of OR 42 at 1,700 ADT dropping to under
1,000 ADT at the Powers city limits.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-3
Seasonal Fluctuations
The volumes shown in Figure 4-1 are average volumes for the year. Summertime is the season
when volumes are highest. Data from the three ATRs in Coos County located on US 101 show
that summer volumes vary from 15 to 35 percent higher than ADTs. Monthly fluctuations are
smallest near the Coos Bay/North Bend urban area, where the daily travel of the large resident
population influences traffic trends, and greatest near the county lines to the north and south,
where recreational travel accounts for a much higher percentage of the overall traffic volume.
Design Hourly Volumes
The design hourly volume (DHV) is the hourly volume that is used for long-range planning and
design. For any roadway, it represents the 30th highest hourly traffic volume along the roadway
segment throughout the year. A review of the ATR data on the state highways in Coos,
Douglas, and Lane Counties shows that values for the 30th highest hour range from 10 to 16
percent of the ADT. These data also show that the 30th highest hour as a percentage of ADT
fluctuates minimally each year.
Table 4-1. Traffic Volume Characteristics from ATR Sites within and near Coos County
ATR # Location 2008 ADT Truck %
Truck
Volume DHV % DHV
06-001 US 101, 1.09 miles south of the Coos-
Douglas County Line (MP 221.67)
8,000 8.2 655 12.4 990
06-004 US 101, 1.02 miles south of SW 18th
St.
(MP 275.87)
6,350 8.5 540 11.9 755
06-009 US 101, 0.28 miles north of Coos Bay-
Roseburg Highway (MP 243.99)
14,750 8.6 1,270 10.4 1,535
10-003 OR 38, 7.08 miles east of Scottsburg West
Road (MP 23.65)
3,500 24.2 850 15.6 545
10-006 OR 42, 1.22 miles west of Brockway Road
(MP 70.51)
6,000 16.0 960 10.0 600
20-005 OR 126, 3.06 miles west of Territorial
Highway – OR 200 (MP 43.86)
6,400 10.6 680 12.3 790
Source: 2008 Transportation Volume Tables, ODOT Transportation Data Section
Hourly traffic counts in Coos County were collected at different times during the year, but all of
the counts have been adjusted to estimate DHVs. The DHVs were calculated by multiplying the
peak hour volumes by a seasonal factor. The seasonal factors used in the calculations were
determined using five years of data from the ATRs listed above and from other seasonal trend
information available from ODOT. The DHVs are presented under the traffic operations section
of the report in the analysis of two-lane highways (see Table 4-3).
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-4
Traffic Operations
Traffic operations were analyzed for selected roadway segments and intersections throughout
Coos County. Operations were evaluated according to the methodologies in the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM)5.
Operational Criteria
Transportation engineers have established various standards for measuring traffic operations of
roadways and intersections. Each standard is associated with a particular level of service (LOS)
and/or the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. Both the LOS and v/c ratio concepts require
consideration of factors that include traffic demand, capacity of the intersection or roadway,
delay, frequency of interruptions in traffic flow, relative freedom for traffic maneuvers, driving
comfort, convenience, and operating cost.
Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio
Transportation engineers have established various standards for measuring traffic capacity and
quality of service of roadways at intersections. A comparison of traffic volume demand to
intersection capacity is one method of evaluating how well an intersection is operating. This
comparison is presented as a v/c ratio. A v/c ratio of less than 1.00 indicates that the volume is
less than capacity. When it is closer to 0.00, traffic conditions are generally good with little
congestion and low delays for most intersection movements. As the v/c ratio approaches 1.00,
traffic becomes more congested and unstable with longer delays.
The OHP6 has established several policies that enforce general objectives and approaches for
maintaining highway mobility. Of these policies, the Highway Mobility Standards (Policy 1F)
establish maximum v/c ratio standards for peak hour operating conditions for all highways in
Oregon based the location and classification of the highway segment being examined. The OHP
policy also specifies that the v/c standards be maintained for ODOT facilities through a 20-year
horizon.
The operational standards applicable to the state highways in Coos County are found in the
Oregon Highway Plan. Standards for unincorporated communities and rural areas, found in the
most recent version of the Oregon Highway Plan, are summarized in Table 4-2. The appropriate
standards for roadways intersecting state highways are also presented in the table. For
segments of state highways within the UGB, standards are dependent on additional variables,
such as speed limits, and should be determined by reviewing the most recent version of the
OHP.
5 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2000.
6 Table 6: Maximum volume to capacity ratios for peak hour operating conditions, 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon
Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, 1999.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-5
Table 4-2. State Highways Operational Standards
Number Name
State
Classification
State
Freight
Route
Highway V/C Ratio Intersecting
Roadway
V/C Ratio
Unincorporated
Communities Rural
US 101 Oregon Coast Highway Statewide Yes 0.701/0.75 0.70 0.80
OR 42 Coos Bay-Roseburg Highway Statewide Yes 0.702/0.75 0.70 0.80
OR 42S Coquille-Bandon Highway District No 0.80 0.75 0.80
OR 241 Coos River Highway District No 0.753/0.80 0.75 0.80
OR 540 Cape Arago Highway District No 0.80 0.75 0.80
OR 542 Powers Highway District No 0.80 0.75 0.80
Notes:
1. US 101 is a freight route from the Coos-Douglas County Line at milepost 220.58 to the junction with OR 42 at milepost 244.27 and US 101 is
an expressway north of OR 42 to S. city limits of Coos Bay. The lower v/c ratio applies to the portion of US 101 that is either an expressway
or a designated freight route.
2. OR 42 is an expressway from W. of Myrtle Point to Coquille & W. of Coquille to US 101. The lower v/c ratio applies to the portion of US 101
that is an expressway.
3. OR 241 is a statewide highway at the junction with US 101 and is part of the National Highway System from US 101 at to the Bunker Hill
Industrial Area access on Mullen Road. The lower v/c ratio applies to the portion of US 101 that has a statewide classification.
Source: 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, July 2006, Table 6.
The County employs v/c ratio as its primary method for measuring performance, with the LOS
criteria serving as a secondary measurement. A maximum v/c ratio of 0.85 should be
maintained for all County-maintained intersections during a typical weekday peak hour7.
Level of Service
Although the OHP Highway Mobility Standards are the overriding operations standard for
Oregon highways, level of service (LOS) is a widely recognized and accepted measure and
descriptor of traffic operations and is therefore also presented. At both stop-controlled and
signalized intersections, LOS is a function of control delay, which includes initial deceleration
delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Six standards have
been established ranging from LOS A where there is little or no delay, to LOS F, where there is
delay of more than 50 seconds at unsignalized intersections, or more than 80 seconds at
signalized intersections.
It should be noted that, although delays can sometimes be long for some movements at a
STOP-controlled intersection, the v/c ratio may indicate that there is adequate capacity to
process the demand for that movement. Similarly at signalized intersections, some movements,
particularly side street approaches or left turns onto side streets, may experience longer delays
because they receive only a small portion of the green time during a signal cycle but their v/c
ratio may be relatively low. For these reasons it is important to examine both v/c ratio and LOS
when evaluating overall intersection operations. Both are reported below.
7 The County operational standards were developed as part of this TSP update.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-6
Roadway Segment Operations
Two-lane highway operations were evaluated for selected roadway segments on the state
highway system.
Methodology
Two-lane highway operations were determined using procedures outlined in the HCM. Analysis
of rural two-lane highway sections takes into account several variables including the
magnitude, type, and directional distribution of traffic as well as roadway features such as the
percentage of no-passing zones, general terrain, and lane and shoulder widths. Each of these
variables affects the capacity of the rural highway. The capacity of a two-lane highway is
generally assumed to be 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pcph) per direction of travel, with a
maximum of 3,200 passenger cars per hour per direction of travel for both directions
combined.
Although roadway capacity is largely fixed by roadway features, it does vary based on the
composition of traffic. The presence of large trucks increases the passenger car equivalent
values due to their size and performance characteristics, especially along upgrades. Therefore,
the passenger car equivalent values presented in Table 4-2 are unique to the geometric and
prevailing traffic conditions in 2008. Future calculation of v/c ratios should include
recalculation of passenger car equivalent values to account for potential changes in roadway
features or traffic composition.
Two-lane highway operations were analyzed for eleven rural segments in Coos County under
estimated two-way design hour volumes. The two-lane highway design speed was assumed to
be 60 mph. The remaining variables differed by location for each rural highway segment. Since
all rural segments have multiple ADT volumes reported, a worst case analysis was performed
using the highest reported volume for each segment.
Two-lane highways are categorized into two classes for analysis. Class I highways are two-lane
highways on which travelers expect to travel at relatively high speeds, while Class II highways
are two-lane highways on which motorists accept lower travel speeds (i.e. recreational routes,
access routes to Class I highways, or rugged terrain routes). The LOS for Class I highways is
defined in terms of both percent time-spent-following and average speed. On Class II highways
the LOS is defined only in terms of percent time-spent-following. The average percentage of
travel time that vehicles must travel in platoons behind slower vehicles due to the inability to
pass is the definition of percent time-spent-following.
Results
The resulting v/c ratio and LOS for each two-lane highway segment are shown in Table 4-3. All
two-lane highway segments currently operate well within v/c ratio standards outlined in the
1999 OHP and most operate under generally good conditions at LOS C or better. The only
exception is the section of US 101 north of the North Bend City limits, where traffic volumes are
the greatest of any rural segment of highway.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-7
Table 4-3. Summary of Two-Lane Highway Operations – Existing Condition (2008)
Location
Design
Hour
Volume
(vph)
Passenger Car
Equivalent
Volume1
(vph)
Two-way
Capacity
(pcph)
V/C
Ratio2
Percent Time
Spent
Following
LOS3
US 101 At ATR 06-001: South of County Line 990 1,110 3,200 0.35 63.2 C
North Bend city limits 1,785 1,990 3,200 0.64 83.2 D
At ATR 06-004: South of Bandon 755 850 3,200 0.31 53.3 C
0.10 mile south of Seven Devils Road 870 930 3,200 0.33 58.3 C
At the Coos-Curry County Line 545 645 3,200 0.25 45.9 B
OR 42 North/West of Powers Highway Junction 530 650 3,200 0.20 41.8 B
OR 42S East of US 101 490 525 3,200 0.18 39.0 B
West of Coquille 275 310 3,200 0.11 25.2 A
OR 241 East of Coos Bay 155 165 3,200 0.06 16.1 A
OR 540 East of Charleston 595 620 3,200 0.20 44.9 B
OR 542 South of OR 42 200 225 3,200 0.07 19.7 A
Notes:
1. The passenger-car equivalent volumes are adjusted for peak hour factor, for grade, and heavy vehicles.
2. The volume used to compute v/c ratio is the calculated passenger-car equivalent flow rate in vehicles per hour (vph) as described in
Chapter 20 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
3. LOS is defined in terms of both % time-spent-following and average travel speed for Class I two-lane highways and percent time-spent-
following for Class II two-lane highways.
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Intersection Operations
Twenty-one (21) intersections located throughout Coos County were analyzed to determine
existing intersection operations.
Methodology
Traffic operations at selected intersections within Coos County were evaluated using
procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual for signalized and unsignalized
intersections. The design hour volumes were developed from multiplying the peak hour
volumes by the appropriate seasonal factor.
Results
The results of the intersection analysis are shown in Table 4-4.
As shown in Table 4-4, all of the 21 analyzed intersections operate well within ODOT's mobility
standards outlined in the 1999 OHP under design (30th highest) hour conditions. The critical
movement represents the non-free flowing movement with the highest v/c ratio. The majority
of the intersections operate under generally free flowing conditions at LOS A or B, with LOS C,
D, and E only occurring within city limits. This indicates that all other lower-volume
intersections or driveways accessing any rural or urban portion of the highways are operating at
LOS A or B as well.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-8
Table 4-4. Summary of Intersection Operations – Existing Condition (2008)
Intersection Critical Movement1
V/C Ratio2
LOS2
US 101 at Wildwood Road Westbound left, right 0.39 C
Hauser Depot Road Westbound left, through, right 0.18 D
North Bay Road (Hauser) Westbound left, through, right 0.08 C
Jordan Cove Road Eastbound left, right 0.25 C
North Bay Road (South) Westbound left, right 0.32 D
East Bay Drive (signalized) Overall 0.66 A
Coos-Sumner Lane Westbound left, right 0.13 C
Davis Slough Road Northbound left, right 0.04 B
West Beaver Hill Road Northbound left 0.05 B
Beaver Hill Road Westbound left, right 0.13 C
Beach Loop Road Eastbound left, through, right 0.10 B
OR 42 at Davis Slough Road Southbound left, right 0.01 B
North Bank Road Eastbound left, right 0.09 B
Fishtrap Road Southbound left, right 0.04 A
OR 42S Eastbound left, right 0.21 B
OR 42S at Lampa Lane Northbound left, right 0.01 A
OR 241 at Olive Barber Road Westbound left, right 0.39 E
Coos River Road Northbound left 0.06 A
East Bay Road Northbound left 0.05 A
OR 540 at Seven Devils Road Northbound left, through, right 0.08 A
Trans-Pacific Highway and Horsefall Road Southbound left, right 0.02 A
Notes:
1. The critical movement for unsignalized intersections is the intersection movement with the worst v/c ratio; generally this
movement is on the minor approach. At signalized intersections, the critical movement actually reflects the overall intersection
operations rather than any single movement.
2. The v/c ratio and LOS are calculated following the methodologies in Chapters 16 and 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Crash History
Crash data from the most recent five-year period available (January 1, 2003 to December 31,
2007) was evaluated for county portions of state highways and for county major and minor
collector roads. The purpose of reviewing crash histories is to identify high crash locations,
potential crash patterns, and any potential safety concerns at these locations.
During the five-year analysis period, there were a 1,330 crashes reported in Coos County
outside of city limits. Of these crashes, 37 were fatal collisions. The majority of reported
crashes involved a fixed object (43%), rear-end (19%), or turning (12%) collisions.
County Roadways
Crash data from the most recent five-year period available (January 1, 2003 to December 31,
2007) was evaluated for county major and minor collector roadways but excludes local roads.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-9
The evaluation identifies high crash locations, potential crash patterns, and any potential safety
concerns at these locations. During the evaluated period, there were 272 crashes reported in
Coos County. Of these crashes along county roadways, 15 resulted were fatal collisions. The
majority of reported crashes involved a fixed object (54%) collision. Figure 4-2 illustrates the
distribution of crashes along county roadways by collision type. County roadways which
experienced a high frequency (ten or more crashes during the study period) of crashes or one
or more fatal collisions are shown in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5. Crash History for County Roadways (2003-2007)
Road # Name Jurisdiction Fatal Crashes
Total
Crashes
Average Crashes
Per Year
184 Libby Lane County 3 40 8
45 East Bay Road County 0 26 5
9 Fairview Road County 0 24 5
33 Seven Devils Road County 1 21 4
208 Beaver Hill Road. County 2 13 3
7A North Bay Road County 0 12 2
5 North Bank Lane County 1 11 2
144 Olive Barber Road County 0 11 2
59 Fairview Sumner Lane County 0 10 2
1 Sitkum Lane County 1 9 2
4 Lampa Lane County 1 4 1
90 South Powers Road County 1 4 1
186 North Lake Lane County 1 3 1
13 McKinley Lane County 1 2 0
29 Beach Loop Road. County 1 1 0
281 Private Roadways Private 2 9 2
Total 15 272 54
Source: ODOT Crash Analysis Reporting System
Most of the roadways listed in Table 4-5 have narrow paved surfaces with little to no paved
shoulder. Many also have sharp horizontal curves. The most common collision type was fixed-
object involving a single vehicle running off the road. Most of the fatal crashes were also fixed-
object collisions but there were a few multi-vehicle fatal crashes from head-on angle collisions.
The county roads with the greatest number of collisions are discussed below.
Libby Lane
There were 40 reported crashes along Libby Lane during the five-year study period. The most
frequent collision type was fixed-object, which accounted for 22 of the total crashes (more than
half). Eighteen of the reported crashes occurred in a horizontal curve. There were 3 fatal
crashes, which all occurred in different segments and involved separate collision types (head-
on, fixed-object, and angle). Crashes were relatively distributed throughout this roadway.
Fixed Object
Non-Collision13%
Other13%
Head-On4%
Sideswipe-M4%
Fairview Road(24 total crashes)
`
Non-Collision
Other3%
Head-On5%
Sideswipe-M8% Angle
5%
Backing3%
Libby Lane(40 total crashes)
Fixed Object44%
Rear19%
Turning11%
Non-Collision6%
Other6%
Sideswipe-O4% Head-On
3%
Sideswipe-M3%
Angle2%
Backing1%
Pedestrian1%
Crashes by Collision Type: Coos County Roadways(272 total crashes)
Fixed Object50%Rear
8%
Turning15%
Non-Collision11%
Other8%
Sideswipe-O4% Backing
4%
East Bay Road(26 total crashes)
Fixed Object50%
Rear8%
Turning8%
Non-Collision13%
Other13%
Head-On4%
Sideswipe-M4%
Fairview Road(24 total crashes)
`
Fixed Object59%Rear
12%
Head-On17%
Sideswipe-M6%
Angle6%
Seven Devils Road(21 total crashes)
Fixed Object55%Rear
2%Turning7%
Non-Collision12%
Other3%
Head-On5%
Sideswipe-M8% Angle
5%
Backing3%
Libby Lane(40 total crashes)
Figure 4-2
Crashes by Collision Type: County Roadways(2003-2007 Reported Crashes)
Coos County TSP Update
Fixed Object44%
Rear19%
Turning11%
Non-Collision6%
Other6%
Sideswipe-O4% Head-On
3%
Sideswipe-M3%
Angle2%
Backing1%
Pedestrian1%
Crashes by Collision Type: Coos County Roadways(272 total crashes)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-10
Fairview Road
Twenty-four crashes occurred on Fairview Road during the five-year analysis period. The most
frequent collision type was fixed-object, which accounted for 12 of the total crashes (half of the
total). There were no fatal crashes that occurred on this roadway. Nine of the reported crashes
occurred in a horizontal curve. Clusters of crashes occurred at milepost 1.0 (3), between
milepost 5.0 and 6.0 (6), and between milepost 8.6 and 8.9 (3), but crashes were otherwise
distributed throughout this corridor which has sharp horizontal curves throughout.
East Bay Road
Of the 26 reported crashes along East Bay Road during the five-year study period, the most
frequent collision types were fixed-object (13) and turning (4) related. There were no fatal
crashes that occurred on this roadway. East Bay Road has little to no shoulders and sharp
horizontal curves throughout the corridor. Clusters of crashes occurred near milepost 1.0 (one
mile southeast of US 101 connection), and between milepost 5.0 and 6.0 (2 miles northwest of
OR 241).
Seven Devils Road
Of the 21 reported crashes along Seven Devils Road during the five-year study period, the most
frequent (13) collision type was fixed-object related. There were also 4 head-on collisions, 2 of
which occurred at milepost 2.5. There was 1 fatal crash along this roadway, which involved a
head-on collision. Crashes were relatively distributed throughout the corridor, which has sharp
horizontal curves throughout.
State Highways
In addition to the five-year review of crash data, ODOT’s Crash Summary Database also
calculates three useful factors for comparison with statewide statistics: average crash rates by
segment, the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) value, and Safety Investment Program (SIP)
rating. After the overview of these statewide statistics, there is a safety evaluation which
discusses each state corridor.
Crash Data
Crash data from the most recent five-year period available (January 1, 2003 to December 31,
2007) was evaluated for State roadways to identify high crash locations, potential crash
patterns, and any potential safety concerns at these locations. During the evaluated period,
there were a total of 1058 crashes reported on state highways in Coos County. Of these crashes
along state highways, 22 resulted in a fatality(s). The majority of reported crashes involved a
fixed object (42%), rear-end (22%), or turning (13%) related collision. Figure 4-3 illustrates the
distribution of crashes along state highways by collision type. Each state highway experienced
at least one fatal crash during the analysis period. Table 4-6 itemizes the observed crashes by
highway. In addition, Figure 4-4 illustrates identified safety locations along state and county
facilities.
Fixed Object33%
Rear30%
Turning15%
Non-Collision5%
Other5%
Sideswipe-O7%
Head-On1%
Sideswipe-M2%
Angle2%
US-101 (Oregon Coast Highway)(485 total crashes)
Fixed Object56%
Rear10%
Turning8%
Non-Collision7%
Other9%
Sideswipe-O3% Head-On
3%
Sideswipe-M3%
Angle1%
OR-42 (Coos Bay-Roseburg Hwy)(313 total crashes)
Fixed Object43%
Turning12%
Non-Collision7%
Other6%
Head-On3%
Sideswipe-M6% Pedestrian
1%
OR-241 (Coos River Hwy )(69 total crashes)
`
Fixed Object56%
Non-Collision7%
Other13%
Head-On2%
Sideswipe-M7% Angle
2%
OR-42S (Coquille-Bandon Highway)(45 total crashes)
Fixed Object33%
Rear30%
Turning15%
Non-Collision5%
Other5%
Sideswipe-O7%
Head-On1%
Sideswipe-M2%
Angle2%
US-101 (Oregon Coast Highway)(485 total crashes)
Fixed Object56%
Rear10%
Turning8%
Non-Collision7%
Other9%
Sideswipe-O3% Head-On
3%
Sideswipe-M3%
Angle1%
OR-42 (Coos Bay-Roseburg Hwy)(313 total crashes)
Fixed Object19%
Rear43%
Turning21%
Non-Collision1%
Other2%
Side-swipe-O5%
Head-On1%
Angle3%
Backing3%
Pedestrian2%
OR-540 (Cape Arago Hwy)(98 total crashes)
Fixed Object43%
Rear22%
Turning12%
Non-Collision7%
Other6%
Head-On3%
Sideswipe-M6% Pedestrian
1%
OR-241 (Coos River Hwy )(69 total crashes)
`
Fixed Object63%
Rear2%
Turning8%
Non-Collision13%
Other2%
Sideswipe-O2%
Head-On2%
Side-swipe-M4%
Angle2%
Pedestrian2%
OR-542 (Powers Highway)(48 total crashes)
Fixed Object56%
Rear4%
Turning9%
Non-Collision7%
Other13%
Head-On2%
Sideswipe-M7% Angle
2%
OR-42S (Coquille-Bandon Highway)(45 total crashes)
Figure 4-3
Crashes by Collision Type: State Highways(2003-2007 Reported Crashes)
Coos County TSP Update
101
101
241
42
42S
42
101
242
42
Coos Bay
North Bend
Bandon
Coquille
Lakeside
Myrtle Point
Powers
Port Orford
Identified Safety Locations
Source Data: ODOT, Coos County 2007-08
Coos County TSP Update
Figure 4-4
File: P:\O\ODOT00000631\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\TM3\Existing Streets and Crashes
3 0 31.5 Miles
Approximate Fatal Crash LocationState HighwayCounty RoadCity Boundary
Safety Priority Index System (SPIS)90% - 95%95% - 100%
Safety Investment Program (SIP)Segment Ratings
0 Crashes (Cat. 1)1-2 Crashes (Cat. 2)3-5 Crashes (Cat. 3)6-9 Crashes (Cat. 4)10+ Crashes (Cat. 5)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-11
Table 4-6. Crash History for State Highways (2003-2007)
Route Name Fatal Crashes Total Crashes Average Crashes Per Year
US 101 Oregon Coast 10 485 97
OR 42 Coos Bay-Roseburg 4 313 63
OR 540 Cape Arago 3 98 20
OR 241 Coos River 1 69 14
OR 542 Powers 2 48 10
OR 42S Coquille-Bandon 2 45 9
Total 22 1058 212
Source: ODOT Crash Analysis Reporting System
Average Crash Rates
The first factor is a computed average crash rate, which compares the number of crashes with
the ADT volume and the length of the segment analyzed. The crash rate, as summarized in
Table 4-7 for a stretch of roadway is typically calculated as the number of crashes per million
vehicle miles (crashes/mvm) traveled along that segment of roadway.
Table 4-7. Historic Crash Rates for State Highways
Crashes per Million Vehicle Miles
Highway/Segment Milepost 2007 2006 2005
US 101 (Oregon Coast Highway)
Coos/Douglas County Line to Lakeside (Rural) 220.58-221.37 0.00 0.88 0.00
Lakeside to North Bend (Rural) 222.09-234.01 0.59 0.58 0.62
Coos Bay to End of Urban Area (Suburban) 239.22-239.63 2.26 1.58 1.61
Coos Bay to Bandon (Rural) 239.63-260.64 0.81 0.51 0.61
Bandon to Coos/Curry County Line (Rural) 274.84-285.78 0.79 0.42 0.73
OR 42 (Coos Bay-Roseburg Highway)
US 101 to Coquille (Rural) 0.00-10.15 0.80 0.59 1.08
Coquille to Myrtle Point (Rural) 12.08-20.01 0.23 0.18 0.69
Myrtle Point to Coos/Douglas County Line (Rural) 21.83-44.95 0.69 0.81 0.64
OR 42S (Coquille-Bandon Highway)
Bandon-Coquille (Rural) 0.17-16.78 1.53 1.41 1.06
OR 241 (Coos River Highway)
US 101 to Coos Bay (Suburban) 0.00-0.72 1.65 1.97 1.17
Coos Bay to End Highway (Rural) 2.19-19.15 3.08 0.72 1.27
OR 540 (Cape Arago Highway)
Coos Bay to End Highway (Rural) 4.49-18.11 1.88 1.44 1.49
OR 542 (Powers Highway)
OR 42 to Powers (Rural) 0.00-17.52 1.92 1.14 1.13
Statewide Average Suburban Non-Freeway 1.17 1.21 1.20
Statewide Average Rural Non-Freeway 0.79 0.77 0.77
Source: State Highway Crash Rate Tables (Oregon), 2007
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-12
Crash rates that exceed the statewide average for similar roadways (shown at the bottom of
Table 4-7) are highlighted in black. Countywide, there are numerous locations which exceed
the statewide average crash rates.
Safety Priority Index System (SPIS)
The SPIS is a method used in Oregon to identify safety problem areas along state highways.
Highways are evaluated in approximately one-tenth mile increments (often grouped into larger
segments). Each year these segments are ranked by assigning a “SPIS score” based on the
frequency and severity crashes observed, while taking traffic volume into account. When a
segment is ranked in the top 10% of the index, a crash analysis is typically warranted and
corrective actions are considered. There are 11 highway segments identified in the top 10% of
the SPIS rankings within Coos County.
Safety Investment Program (SIP)
Oregon uses the SIP to prioritize investments at identified safety locations through the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). SIP locations are broken into five
different categories based upon the frequency and severity of observed crashes within a three-
year study period. The categories are categorized as follows:
• Category 1: 0 (no) fatal or injury A (serious) crashes
• Category 2: 1 to 2 fatal or injury A crashes
• Category 3: 3 to 5 fatal or injury A crashes
• Category 4: 6 to 9 fatal or injury A crashes
• Category 5: 10 or more fatal or injury A crashes.
Funding is generally targeted at locations with category rankings 3 through 5. There are 46 SIP
locations along state highways in Coos County. Of the SIP locations, 14 are category 3 or higher.
Safety Evaluation by Corridor
The crash patterns, rates, SPIS, and SIP locations are described for each corridor.
US 101 (Oregon Coast Highway)
There were 485 ODOT reported crashes along US 101 during the five-year analysis period,
which results in an annual average of 97 crashes. Ten of the reported crashes were fatal
collisions. The majority of crashes along this corridor were fixed object (33%), rear-end (30%),
or turning (15%) collisions (see Figure 4-3).
The 10 fatal crashes that occurred along this corridor resulted from 4 fixed object, 2 pedestrian,
2 sideswipe-meeting, 1 turning, and 1 non-collision related collisions. Only 1 segment along
this corridor experienced 2 fatalities during the analyzed period (approximate milepost 220.86-
220.90). This segment contains a passing lane and a small turnout/forest access.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-13
Average crash rates between milepost 239.22 and 239.63 (Coos Bay to end of urban area) are
approximately 50% higher than the statewide average for similar roadways. This section is in an
urban/suburban environment with frequent access points.
Table 4-8 summarizes the SPIS and SIP locations along US 101. There are 4 top 10% SPIS
segments identified in 2008 along US 101 within Coos County. The first three SPIS locations
correspond with SIP segments rates 3 or higher. In addition, US 101 has 16 SIP segments
identified with four locations that are category 3 or higher.
Table 4-8. SPIS and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – US 101
Rating
System
Milepost SIP Information
SPIS Score Beginning Ending No. of Crashes Category
SPIS 235.4 235.5 - - 52.14
SPIS 235.43 235.54 - - 47.71
SPIS 258.92 259.09 - - 48.01
SPIS 273.59 273.77 - - 46.41
SIP 225 230 4 3 -
SIP 230 235 6 4 -
SIP 235 240 3 3 -
SIP 255 260 3 3 -
Sources: ODOT Safety Priority Index System (2008) and Oregon Safety Improvement Program, 2008
OR 42 (Coos Bay-Roseburg) Highway
There were a total of 313 ODOT reported crashes along OR 42 during the five-year period
analyzed, which results in an annual average of 63 crashes. Four of the reported were fatal
collisions. The majority of crashes along this corridor were fixed object (56%), rear-end (10%),
or turning (8%) collisions. Over half (170 of 313) of the crashes along this corridor occurred
between mileposts 0.00 (US 101) and 7.0. Other clusters of crashes occurred near mileposts
9.0, 13.0, 24.0, and 43.0.
The 4 fatal crashes that occurred along this corridor resulted from 3 fixed object, and 1 head-on
related collision(s). There were no segments along this corridor that experienced greater than
1 fatal crash during the analyzed period; however, all fatal crashes occurred in the 9-mile
section between milepost 23.5 and 32.3.
Average crash rates along OR 42 were generally at or below the statewide average for similar
roadways. Only the segment between US 101 and Coquille (milepost 0.00-10.15) has a three-
year average crash rate higher than the statewide average.
Table 4-9 summarizes the SPIS and SIP locations along US 101. There are 2 top 10% SPIS
segments identified in 2008 along OR 42 within Coos County. The SPIS locations correspond
with SIP segments rates 3 or higher. In addition, there are also 16 SIP locations identified along
OR 42. Seven of the SIP locations are category 3 or higher.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-14
Table 4-9. SPIS and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – OR 42
Rating
System
Milepost SIP Information
SPIS Score Beginning Ending No. of Crashes Category
SPIS 0.91 1.09 - - 54.58
SPIS 7.91 8.09 - - 45.53
SIP 0 5 5 3 -
SIP 5 10 5 3 -
SIP 20 25 4 3 -
SIP 45 50 5 3 -
SIP 50 55 3 3 -
SIP 55 60 3 3 -
SIP 70 77.2 4 3 -
Sources: ODOT Safety Priority Index System (2008) and Oregon Safety Improvement Program, 2008
OR 42S (Coquille-Bandon Highway)
There were a total of 45 ODOT reported crashes along OR 42S during the five-year period
analyzed, which results in an annual average of approximately 9 crashes. Two of the reported
crashes were fatal collisions. The majority of crashes along this corridor were fixed object
(56%), turning (9%), or non-collision (7%) collisions. The 2 fatal crashes that occurred along this
corridor resulted from 1 fixed object and 1 turning related collision. Crashes were relatively
distributed throughout the corridor.
Average crash rates along OR 542 were almost double the statewide average for similar
roadways (1.33 vs. 0.78).
Table 4-10 summarizes the SIP locations along OR 42; there are no SPIS locations. There are 3
SIP locations identified along OR 42S. One of the SIP locations is category 3.
Table 4-10. STIP and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – OR 42S
Rating
System
Milepost SIP Information
SPIS Score Beginning Ending No. of Crashes Category
SIP 0 5 3 3 -
Sources: ODOT Safety Priority Index System (2008) and Oregon Safety Improvement Program, 2008
OR 241 (Coos River Highway)
There were 69 ODOT reported crashes along US 101 during the five-year period analyzed, which
results in an annual average of approximately 14. One of the reported crashes resulted in a
fatality(s). The majority of crashes along this corridor were fixed object (43%), rear-end (22%),
or turning (12%) related. Crashes were relatively distributed throughout the corridor.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-15
The fatal crash that occurred along this corridor resulted from a fixed object collision on a
segment with a sharp horizontal curve and a single lane with no shoulder in each direction.
Average crash rates between milepost 2.19 and 19.15 (Coos Bay to end of highway) are more
than double the statewide average for similar roadways. This section is in a rural environment.
There are no SPIS locations along OR 241 but there are 4 SIP locations identified. None of the
SIP locations are category 3 or higher.
OR 540 (Cape Arago Highway)
There were 98 ODOT reported crashes along OR 540 during the five-year period analyzed,
which results in an annual average of 20 crashes. Three of the reported crashes were fatal
collisions. The majority of crashes along this corridor were rear-end (44%), fixed object (19%),
rear-end (10%), or turning (20%) collisions. Most of the reported crashes occurred in the urban
segments which have frequent access points. Moreover, 84 of the 98 reported crashes (85%)
occurred between milepost 4.5 and 8.5.
Although the most frequent collision types on OR 540 were rear-end and turning related, 2 of
the 3 fatal crashes that occurred along this corridor resulted from fixed-object collisions in the
area which experience a low frequency of crashes (between milepost 9.0 and 10.0). The
remaining fatal crash resulted from a rear-end collision.
Average crash rates along OR 540 were approximately double the statewide average for rural
roadways. Although this section of the highway is classified as a rural environment, much of it
passes through suburban segments (where most of the crashes occurred). Even if the average
crash rate is compared to a statewide suburban crash rate, OR 540 would be 34% higher than
the average crash rate.
Table 4-11 summarizes the SPIS and SIP locations along OR 540. There are 4 top 10% SPIS
segments identified in 2008 along OR 540 within Coos County. All of the SPIS locations
correspond with SIP segments rates 3 or higher. In addition, there are also 3 SIP locations
identified along OR 42; two locations are category 3 or higher.
Table 4-11. SPIS and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – OR 540
Rating
System
Milepost SIP Information
SPIS Score Beginning Ending No. of Crashes Category
SPIS 0.04 0.13 - - 53.45
SPIS 0.68 0.86 - - 61.49
SPIS 1.93 2.05 - - 50.94
SPIS 9.19 9.33 - - 46.60
SIP -0.05 5 3 3 -
SIP 5 10 5 3 -
Sources: ODOT Safety Priority Index System (2008) and Oregon Safety Improvement Program, 2008
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-16
OR 542 (Powers Highway)
There were 48 ODOT reported crashes along OR 542 during the five-year period analyzed,
which results in an annual average of approximately 10 crashes. Two of the reported crashes
were fatal collisions. The majority of crashes along this corridor were fixed object (63%), non-
collision (13%), or turning (8%) collisions. The 2 fatal crashes that occurred along this corridor
resulted from fixed object related collisions. Crashes were distributed throughout the corridor.
Average crash rates along OR 542 were nearly double the statewide average for similar
roadways (1.40 vs. 0.78).
Table 4-12 summarizes the SPIS and SIP locations along OR 540. There is one top 10% SPIS
segments identified in 2008 along OR 542 within Coos County. This segment is located from
milepost 17.29 to 17.46 (SPIS score =51.78). There are also 4 SIP locations identified along OR
542. None of the SIP locations are category 3 or higher.
Table 4-12. SPIS and SIP Locations (2005-2007) – OR 542
Rating
System
Milepost SIP Information
SPIS Score Beginning Ending No. of Crashes Category
SPIS 17.29 17.46 - - 51.78
Sources: ODOT Safety Priority Index System (2008) and Oregon Safety Improvement Program, 2008
Demographics
Demographic data will be used in the development of travel forecasts for the Coos County
transportation system. Baseline population and employment data along with other
demographic statistics are discussed below.
Population
Population distribution for the urban and rural areas within Coos County is summarized in
Table 4-13.
According to the Oregon Blue Book, the 2007 overall population in Coos County was just over
63,000 residents. Population has grown 6.8 percent since 1990, an average of approximately
0.4 percent per year. Growth has been more rapid since 2000, an average growth rate of 0.7
percent per year.
Most of the growth has been in and around the urban areas with slower growth in the rural
areas. The slower growth in rural areas in part reflects the incorporation of additional areas
within city limits as communities grew. Bandon has grown the most in the last 17 years while
Myrtle Point has lost population since 1990.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-17
Table 4-13. Coos County Population
Population
Location 2007 2000 1990 1990-2007 Growth 2000-2007 Growth
Urban 38,305 36,541 35,857 6.8% 4.8%
Bandon 3,235 2,833 2,215 46.0% 14.2%
Coos Bay 16,210 15,374 15,076 7.5% 5.4%
Coquille 4,215 4,184 4,121 2.3% 0.7%
Lakeside 1,545 1,421 1,437 7.5% 8.7%
Myrtle Point 2,540 2,451 2,712 -6.3% 3.6%
North Bend 9,830 9,544 9,614 2.2% 3.0%
Powers 730 734 682 7.0% -0.5%
Rural 24,745 26,238 24,416 1.3% -5.7%
Total 63,050 62,779 60,273 4.6% 0.4%
Source: Oregon Blue Book, 2007
Employment
Total non-farm employment within Coos County is summarized in Table 4-14.
Table 4-14. Coos County Non-Farm Employment Data
Employment
Location 2008 2001
2001-2008
Growth
Private 16,420 15,330 7.1%
Government 6,220 5,840 6.5%
Total Non-Farm 22,640 21,170 6.9%
Source: Oregon Employment Department
According to the Oregon Employment Department, the 2008 estimated non-farm employment
in Coos County was just over 22,640 jobs with almost 73 percent in the private sector. Total
employment has grown 6.9 percent since 2001, an average of approximately 1.0 percent per
year. Growth in the private sector has been slightly faster than growth in the government
sector.
Comparing Table 4-14 with Table 4-13 shows that employment in Coos County has been
growing at a faster rate than population. However, with recent downward trends in
employment throughout the state, growth rates may be more similar.
Travel Characteristics
Understanding system user travel characteristics can be helpful in identifying potential
measures that could be implemented to manage demand on the transportation system. Data
from the 2000 US Census is available to illustrate some county-wide travel behaviors.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-18
Travel Mode Distribution
US Census data includes statistics on how Coos County residents commute to work. These data
are summarized in Table 4-15.
Table 4-15. Coos County Journey-to-Work Trips
2000 Census
Trip Type Trips Percent
Private Vehicle 22,393 89.6%
Drove Alone 19,292 77.2%
Carpooled 3,101 12.4%
Public Transportation 160 0.6%
Motorcycle 26 0.1%
Bicycle 89 0.4%
Walk 778 3.1%
Other 275 1.1%
Work at Home 1289 5.2%
Total 25,010 100.0%
Source: US Bureau of Census, 2000 Census
The current transportation system in Coos County is relies almost exclusively on the
automobile, except in more populated areas where walking or riding a bicycle is an option. As a
result, Coos County residents use automobiles for their primary mode of travel to work. Almost
90 percent of all trips to work were made in private vehicles with single-occupancy vehicles
accounting for more than 77 percent and carpooling accounting for more than 12 percent. The
next most common mode of travel is actually the non-commute option of working at home at
more than 5 percent.
Commute Trip Times
Table 4-16 summarizes travel time statistics for commute trips from the US Census data.
In Coos County, more than 28 percent of the journey-to-work trips take less than 10 minutes
and 35 percent were between 10 and 20 minutes. Many of these shorter trips were made
within cities or within the urbanized area surrounding the cities. Travel between most cities in
Coos County takes at least 30 minutes. Almost 19 percent of the trips were 30 minutes or
longer, which may reflect some intercity commuting within the county or possibly to other
communities outside the county.
Use of the automobile for commuting is the dominant travel choice even for those who
commute less than five minutes. While a five-minute automobile trip could cover a number of
miles, a five-minute walk will likely cover approximately one-quarter to one-half mile and a five-
minute bike ride will likely cover one to one and one-half miles.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-19
Table 4-16. Coos County Travel Time to Work
2000 Census
Trip Type Trips Percent
Less than 5 minutes 1,694 6.8%
5 to 9 minutes 5364 21.4%
10 to 14 minutes 4651 18.6%
15 to 19 minutes 4103 16.4%
20 to 29 minutes 3,068 12.3%
30 to 39 minutes 2,411 9.6%
40 to 59 minutes 1216 4.9%
60 to 89 minutes 515 2.1%
90 minutes or longer 699 2.8%
Work at Home 1,289 5.2%
Total 1,694 6.8%
Source: US Bureau of Census, 2000 Census
A commonly used threshold for acceptable walking distances is one-quarter mile. At a
reasonable pace, an average person can walk approximately one-quarter mile in five minutes.
Therefore, the almost 7 percent of work trips in Coos County taking less than five minutes
represents the trips that could potentially be made by walking. For walking to occur safely and
efficiently, there must be adequate infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks, pathways, shoulders) in place
to support it. Since most pedestrian destinations are located in and around the cities, the most
likely places to increase pedestrian activity are the urban fringes around the cities.
Departure to Work Distribution
The spread of departure to work times over a 24-hour periods is summarized in Table 4-17.
Table 4-17. Coos County Departure to Work
2000 Census
Trip Type Trips Percent
12:00 a.m. to 4:59 a.m. 1,380 5.3%
5:00 a.m. to 5:59 a.m. 1824 7.0%
6:00 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 3,711 14.2%
7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 7,611 29.1%
8:00 a.m. to 8:59 a.m. 6,269 24.0%
9:00 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. 1,377 5.3%
10:00 a.m. to 10:59 a.m. 622 2.4%
11:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. 284 1.1%
12:00 p.m. to 3:59 p.m. 1720 6.6%
4:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. 1358 5.2%
Total 26,156 100.0%
Source: US Bureau of Census, 2000 Census
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Existing Transportation System Deficiencies 4-20
Over 29 percent of employees depart for work between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m., and another 38
percent depart in either the hour before or hour after the morning peak hour.
Assuming an average nine-hour workday, the corresponding afternoon peak can be determined
for work trips. Using this methodology, the peak work travel hour would occur between 4:00
and 5:00 p.m., which corresponds to the peak hour of activity measured for most traffic
volumes.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Future Transportation System Deficiencies 5-1
5. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Chapter 5 presents transportation system deficiencies expected by the future year 2030. This
section examines long-term population and employment growth forecasts for Coos County
along with growth trends for state highways. This information is used to develop the traffic
volume forecasts for use in the operational analysis.
Demographics
Demographic data is used in the development of travel forecasts for the Coos County
transportation system. Baseline and forecast population and employment forecasts for Coos
County are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Coos County Population and Employment Forecasts
Demographic
Year
Growth Rates
Historic Forecast
2000 2001 2008 2030 Total Annual Total Annual
Population1 62,779 - 63,210 64,929 0.7% 0.03% 2.7% 0.12%
Non-Farm Employment2 - 21,170 22,640 27,500 6.9% 0.99% 21.5% 0.98%
Notes:
1. Population data and forecasts based on data from the Forecasts of Oregon’s County Populations and Components of Change, 2000-2040
released by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis in April 2004.
2. Historic data from Oregon Employment Department. Employment forecast is prorated from the Industry Employment Forecast, 2006-
2016, for Coos and Curry Counties which is published by the Oregon Employment Department in June 2007.
Source: Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and Oregon Employment Department
Population
According to the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA), overall population in Coos County is
expected to increase by 2.7 percent between 2008 and 2030, which would result in a straight-
line average growth rate of 0.12 percent per year. This growth rate is higher than the historic
rate of 0.03 percent per year that was recorded between 2000 and 2008.
Employment
The Oregon Employment Department prepared a 10-year (2006 through 2016) employment
forecast for Coos and Curry Counties combined, which showed an average growth rate of
almost one percent per year. This rate is similar to the historic rate for Coos County over the
2001 through 2008 period. To estimate 2030 forecasts, this annual growth rate was applied to
the 2008 employment, resulting in an employment forecast of 27,500. The total growth from
2008 to 2030 is estimated at 21.5 percent.
Comparing employment growth with population growth shows that employment in Coos
County has been growing at a faster rate than population and that trend is expected to
continue into the future.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Future Transportation System Deficiencies 5-2
Future Traffic Volumes
The future year (2030) traffic volume estimates for Coos County were developed based on
county growth forecasts and ODOT estimates of traffic growth on state highways.
Consideration of different roadway characteristics was another factor used in developing the
future year volume estimates.
Three growth assumptions were applied in developing the forecast traffic volumes:
1. On state highways, the ODOT future volume tables were used to estimate 2030 traffic
volumes. In the North Bend/Coos Bay urban area, where a travel demand forecasting
model has been developed, traffic forecasts on the highways are derived from the
model growth trends. Forecasts for the remaining highway segments are based on
trendline growth patterns derived from historical traffic data.
2. On coastal county roads which serve tourism-related activities, the growth rate from the
intersecting state highway was applied. The state highway growth trends are assumed
to more closely reflect growth on these roadways than the county road growth rate.
The state highway growth trends are also similar to the employment growth forecasts
which include stronger growth in the retail, leisure, and hospitality sectors.
3. On inland county roads which primarily serve the local communities in the county, a
separate county road growth rate was applied. These roads are generally more tied to
the housing development patterns of the community rather than the traffic volumes on
the state highway.
The specific daily and hourly traffic forecasts developed using these assumptions are discussed
below.
Average Daily Traffic
Figure 5-1 illustrates estimated ADT volumes at key locations on state highways and major
county roads.
County Roads
The 2030 ADT volumes on selected roadways in Coos County were estimated from the 2008
traffic volumes and the growth assumptions outlined above. Growth along most county
roadways are estimated under assumption #3 above (3 percent growth assumed); however,
four coastal county roads are anticipated to experience higher tourism-related growth (growth
assumption #2):
• Hauser Depot Road - 27 percent growth
• Jordan Cover Road - 27 percent growth
• Transpacific Parkway - 27 percent growth
• Beach Loop Drive - 27 percent growth
23551220
900
35516
40
1440
900
455
2015
1725 200
5901135
525 135
815
3820
160
2265
36651380
1090
1300
2605
585
Figure 5-1
Future Average Daily Trafficin Coos County (2030)
10000
17600
7000
20500
1500
7900
11400
5000
2500
14800
8300
2600
1300
5400
4000
7900
542
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Future Transportation System Deficiencies 5-3
Some of the most heavily used county roads with ADT volumes between 1,000 and 3,000
vehicles per day include:
• East Bay Drive • Seven Devils Road
• Olive Barber Road • Jordan Cove Road
• Wildwood Road • North Bay Road
• Coos-Sumner Lane • Transpacific Parkway
• Beaver Hill Road • Coos River Road
The ADT volumes estimated for other roadways around the county were under 1000 vehicles
per day.
State Highways
The 2030 ADT volumes on the state highways in Coos County were taken from the ODOT 2007
Traffic Volume Tables, the 2027 Future Volume Tables, and the growth assumptions outline
above.
US 101 (Oregon Coast Highway)
Traffic volumes on the sections of US 101 outside cities are expected to vary from a low of
6,500 at the Coos-Curry county line to over 31,100 just south of the Coos Bay city limits.
Growth in ADT is expected to range between 17 percent (North Bend city limits) and 40 percent
(Coos-Curry County Line), with fluctuations throughout the county. Volumes at the north end
of US 101 at the Coos-Douglas county line (M.P. 220.58) are estimated at just over 8,600 ADT.
Moving southward along the highway, volumes would continue to grow until they are almost
double (17,600 ADT) at the North Bend city limits, with approximately 18 percent growth.
Volumes just south of the Coos Bay city limits are expected to be over 31,100 ADT, but they
would drop off considerably in less than half a mile; just south of the OR 241 junction, ADT is
estimated at 20,500 (39 percent growth). Volumes are expected to drop again dramatically just
south of the OR 42 junction with ADT near 7,900 (22 percent growth). They are estimated to
remain similar near Bandon with 7,900 ADT (22 percent growth), but drop to their lowest level
(6,500 ADT and 40 percent growth) at the Coos-Curry county line (M.P. 285.78).
OR 42 (Coos Bay-Roseburg) Highway
Outside city limits, traffic volumes on OR 42 are expected to vary from a high of 14,800 ADT,
just east of the junction with US 101, to a low of 4,000 ADT at the Coos-Douglas county line.
Growth in ADT is estimated at 40 percent just east of US 101, drop to 8 percent west of Myrtle
Point, and fluctuate towards 29 percent at the County line.
OR 42S (Coquille-Bandon Highway)
Traffic volumes on OR 42S are expected to be highest just east of Bandon with an ADT of
approximately 5,000 (22 percent growth). They would drop off to an estimated low of 1,700
ADT between Bandon and Coquille and then increase as they approach the Coquille city limits
with an ADT of 2,500 (9 percent growth).
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Future Transportation System Deficiencies 5-4
OR 241 (Coos River Highway)
Traffic volumes are highest on the section of OR 241 between US 101 and where it enters the
Coos Bay city limits with approximately 10,900 ADT. After exiting Coos Bay, the ADT is expected
to be 4,400, dropping to around 1,500 ADT over the next two miles and continuing to decrease
until the end of the roadway. East of the city limits, growth is estimated at approximately 17
percent.
OR 540 (Cape Arago Highway)
At the south city limits of Coos Bay, the traffic volumes on OR 540 are approximately 10,600
ADT. Going southward, they drop to approximately 7,000 ADT (41 percent growth) in the
community of Charleston and then drop further to 1,600 ADT at the entrance to the state
parks.
OR 542 (Powers Highway)
Traffic volumes on OR 542 are expected to be highest just south of OR 42 at 2,600 ADT (56
percent growth) dropping to near 1,300 ADT (38 percent growth) at the Powers city limits.
Design Hourly Volumes
The design hourly volumes (DHVs) for 2030 were derived using the existing relationship
between DHVs and ADT volumes. As detailed in the Chapter 4: Existing Transportation System
Deficiencies, the DHVs (30th highest hour) range from 10 to 16 percent of the ADT based on
permanent counters located on highways in Coos, Douglas, and Lane Counties. These data also
show that the 30th highest hour as a percentage of ADT fluctuates minimally each year. The
DHVs are presented under the traffic operations section of the report in the analysis of two-
lane highways (see Table 4-3).
Traffic Operations
Traffic operations were analyzed for selected roadway segments and intersections throughout
Coos County. Operations were evaluated according to the methodologies in the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM)8.
Operational Criteria
Chapter 4: Existing Transportation System Deficiencies provides a detailed description of the
operational outputs and criteria used in the traffic operations analysis. The operational
standards applicable to the state highways in Coos County are found in the Oregon Highway
Plan. Standards found in the most recent version of the Oregon Highway Plan are summarized
in Table 4-2.
Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) mobility standards are applied for existing and future no build
conditions (no/limited geometric changes). Highway Design Manual (HDM) mobility standards
8 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2000.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Future Transportation System Deficiencies 5-5
are applied in conjunction with any design changes. HDM standards can be found in Table 10-1
of the most recent version of the manual.
A maximum v/c ratio of 0.85 should be maintained for all County-maintained intersections
during a typical weekday peak hour, for existing facilities and design modifications.
Although v/c standards are applied for county and state facilities, level of service (LOS) is a
widely recognized and accepted measure and descriptor of traffic operations and is therefore
also presented.
Roadway Segment Operations
Two-lane highway operations were evaluated for selected roadway segments on the state
highway system. Chapter 4: Existing Transportation System Deficiencies provides a detailed
description of the methodology used in the traffic operations analysis for two-lane highways.
The resulting v/c ratio and LOS for each two-lane highway segment are shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. Summary of Two-Lane Highway Operations – Future Condition (2030)
Location
Design
Hour
Volume
(vph)
Passenger Car
Equivalent
Volume1
(vph)
Two-way
Capacity
(pcph)
V/C
Ratio2
Percent
Time
Spent
Following
LOS3
US 101 At ATR 06-001: South of Coos-Douglas Line 1235 1350 3,200 0.44 72 D
At ATR 06-004: South of Bandon 920 1006 3,200 0.33 61 C
At ATR 06-009: North of OR 42 2130 2311 3,200 0.76 88 E
0.10 mile south of Seven Devils Road 985 1083 3,200 0.37 66 C
AT Coos-Curry County Line 765 863 3,200 0.35 62 C
OR 42 Northwest of Powers Highway Junction 645 791 3,200 0.24 49 B
OR 42S East of US 101 595 638 3,200 0.21 45 B
West of Coquille 300 336 3,200 0.12 26 A
OR 241 East of Coos Bay 180 192 3,200 0.50 74 D
OR 540 East of Charleston 840 874 3,200 0.06 17 A
OR 542 South of OR 42 310 346 3,200 0.37 60 C
Notes:
1. The passenger-car equivalent volumes are adjusted for peak hour factor, for grade, and heavy vehicles.
2. The volume used to compute v/c ratio is the calculated passenger-car equivalent flow rate in vehicles per hour (vph) as described in Chapter 20
of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
3. LOS is defined in terms of both % time-spent-following and average travel speed for Class I two-lane highways and percent time-spent-
following for Class II two-lane highways.
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
One of the 11 two-lane highway segments that were analyzed are expected to operate with v/c
ratios above the standards outlined in the 1999 OHP (see Table 4-2). This segment is located on
US 101 just north of North Bend. At each of these highway segments, slower speeds and long
platoons of vehicles (i.e., vehicles grouped together behind a slower-moving vehicle) are
expected, as well as an increase in passing difficulty. Some of the other highway segments
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Future Transportation System Deficiencies 5-6
shown in the table would have acceptable v/c ratios but would experience LOS D conditions
indicating longer vehicle platoons and difficulty passing.
Intersection Operations
Twenty-one (21) intersections located throughout Coos County were analyzed to determine
existing intersection operations. Chapter 4: Existing Transportation System Deficiencies
provides a detailed description of the methodology used in the intersection operations analysis.
The results of the intersection analysis are shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Summary of Intersection Operations – Future Condition (2030)
Intersection Critical Movement1
V/C Ratio2
LOS2
US 101 at Wildwood Road Westbound left, right 0.58 E
Hauser Depot Road Westbound left, through, right 0.45 F
North Bay Road (Hauser) Westbound left, through, right 0.12 C
Jordan Cove Road Eastbound left, right 0.41 D
North Bay Road (South) Westbound left, right 0.50 E
East Bay Drive (signalized) Overall 0.77 A
Coos-Sumner Lane Westbound left, right 0.23 C
Davis Slough Road Northbound left, right 0.04 B
West Beaver Hill Road Eastbound left, right 0.06 B
Beaver Hill Road Westbound left, right 0.17 C
Beach Loop Road Eastbound left, through, right 0.13 C
OR 42 at Davis Slough Road Southbound left, right 0.01 B
North Bank Road Eastbound left, right 0.09 B
Fishtrap Road Southbound left, right 0.04 B
OR 42S Eastbound left, right 0.34 C
OR 42S at Lampa Lane Northbound left, right 0.01 A
OR 241 at Olive Barber Road Westbound left, right 0.64 F
Coos River Road Eastbound right 0.05 A
East Bay Road Northbound left 0.07 A
OR 540 at Seven Devils Road Northbound left, through, right 0.08 A
Trans-Pacific Highway at Horsefall Road Southbound left, right 0.03 A
Notes:
1. The critical movement for unsignalized intersections is the intersection movement with the worst v/c ratio; generally this movement
is on the minor approach. At signalized intersections, the critical movement actually reflects the overall intersection operations
rather than any single movement.
2. The v/c ratio and LOS are calculated following the methodologies in Chapters 16 and 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc.
As shown in Table 5-3, all but one of the 21 analyzed intersections are expected to operate
within ODOT's mobility standards outlined in the 1999 OHP under design (30th highest) hour
conditions. The signalized intersection of East Bay Drive at US 101 would have a v/c ratio of
0.77 but would operate at LOS A, indicating that movements on US 101 would not experience
significant delay.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Future Transportation System Deficiencies 5-7
The remaining intersections all meet the OHP mobility standards, but some of the intersections
along US 101 between Wildwood Road and East Bay Drive would experience longer delays (LOS
D and E) during peak periods. One other intersection, Olive Barber Road at OR 241 is expected
to experience long delays during peak periods. Because this intersection serves primarily
residential traffic, delays may be longer in the morning than in the afternoon.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-1
6. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed transportation system plan that will achieve
the goals and objectives set forth by the Coos County community. Components of the TSP include
roadway standards, access management guidelines, and improvement plans for all modes. Under
the modal plans, this chapter addresses improvements or strategies to meet the needs of all
transportation modes appropriate for Coos County. It is expected that Coos County will
ultimately adopt this TSP as the transportation component of their Comprehensive Plan.
This Chapter proposes changes/improvements in the following categories:
• Roadway System Plan
o Street Design Standards
o Access Management Standards
o Traffic Operations Standards
o Roadway Improvement Projects
o Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
• Public Transportation Plan
• Rail Plan
• Airport Plan
• Pipeline Plan
• Water Plan
The potential projects identified in this Chapter include projects that have been identified for
implementation in Coos County either through ODOT’s Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), City Plans within the County, the County’s road maintenance program, or any
other planning mechanism.
Each potential project includes a location description, brief overview, and planning level cost
estimate. Costs were estimated for design and construction using current unit costs, such as
per linear foot, with a 40 percent contingency included to account for price escalation, utility
relocations and other items that cannot be quantified at the planning level; however, cost
estimates do not incorporate the purchase of right-of-way.
Roadway System Plan
The Coos County roadway system plan aims to provide the desired levels of mobility, access,
maintenance, and safety over the next 20 years. The plan focuses on the County’s collector and
arterial system, although road standards are also provided for local roadways.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-2
Functional Classification
The functional classification system for the Coos County roadway network includes arterials,
rural major collectors, minor collectors, and local streets. Coos County recently upgraded the
functional classification of a number of roadways for consistency with current uses or with state
classifications. No additional changes are recommended as part of the TSP. The functional
classification of the county network, including these recent upgrades, is shown in Figure 6-1.
A general description for the county functional classifications is presented below:
Arterials are the highest demand roadways that carry and distribute regional traffic
between cities and counties. The emphasis is on serving through traffic will controlled and
less frequent property access. The state highway system will continue to serve as the
arterial network within Coos County.
Major collectors connect residential neighborhoods with smaller community centers and
facilities, as well as providing access to the arterial system. They generally serve higher
traffic demands and serve both through traffic as well as providing property access. They
tie federal roads, minor collectors, and local roads to the arterial system and also serve as
relief routes should an event result in the closure of one of the arterial routes. These roads
also provide access to agricultural, forest, and recreational areas.
Minor collectors generally serve lower traffic demands than major collectors. They
generally branch off from highway, arterial, or major collector roadways and provide access
to agricultural, forest, recreational areas, and residential homes. Property access is
generally a higher priority for minor collectors while through traffic movements are served
as a lower priority.
Local streets primarily serve residential properties but can also serve commercial and
industrial areas. Property access is the main priority; through traffic movement is not
encouraged. They are designed to carry low traffic volumes.
County Road Design Standards
Roadway standards relate the cross sectional design of a roadway to its function. The function
is determined by operational characteristics such as traffic volume, operating speed, safety, and
capacity. Roadway standards are necessary to provide a community with roadways that are
relatively safe, aesthetic, and easy to administer when new roadways are planned or
constructed.
Rural road standards for County facilities outside of City UGBs are summarized in Table 6-1 and
are shown graphically in Figure 6-2. More detailed specifications (i.e., subgrade width and
depth, maximum grade, degree of roadway curvature, vertical clearance, etc.) are included in
the Coos County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance. At their discretion, Coos County
may choose to deviate from the adopted design standards for those roadways under County
control.
Coos Bay
North Bend
Bandon
Coquille
Lakeside
Port Orford
Myrtle Point
Powers
Reedsport
£¤101 UV42
UV42
UV241
UV42
UV42
UV542
£¤101
£¤101
UV540
Roadway Functional Classfication
E Source Data: ODOT, Coos County 2007-08
Coos County TSP Update
Figure 6-1
LegendFunctional Classification
City BoundaryCoos County Boundary
Printing Date: 9/16/2010 1:40 PMFilename: P:\O\ODOT00000631\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\TM6\Functional Classification 11x17.mxd
5 0 52.5 Miles
Major CollectorMinor CollectorLocal
State Highway/Arterials
12’ All Weather Travel Surface
40’ Right-of-Way
60’ Right-of-Way
4’ Shoulder
4’ Shoulder
32’ All Weather Travel Surface
20’ All Weather Travel Surface
Private
Local
Minor Collector/Local Commercial/Local Industrial/Major Collector/Arterial
40’ Right-of-Way
Figure 6-2
County Roads Typical Cross-SectionsNot to Scale
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-3
Table 6-1. County Road Rural Design Standards
Roadway Classification
Average
Daily
Traffic
Roadway Width (feet)1
Right-of-
Way Width
(feet) Lanes Shoulders Total
Private2 0-150 - - 12 40
Local Residential 0-600 10 - 20 40
Local Commercial/Industrial 0-600 12 4 32 60
Minor Collector 500-2,500 12 4 32 60
Major Collector and Arterial >2,500 12 4 32 60
Notes:
1. Additional construction requirements are detailed in the Coos County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance.
2. Applicable to private roads constructed in conjunction with a residential partition.
The Coos County roadway system is predominantly rural; however, the county does have some
roads within city UGBs. Construction or reconstruction of County facilities inside of City UGBs
should follow the local jurisdiction’s applicable road standards in order to facilitate a potential
jurisdictional transfer in the future. For areas that fall within a City UGB or urban
unincorporated community without specified standards, the standards identified in Table 6-2
and illustrated in Figure 6-3 shall apply.
Coos County recognizes that many of the existing roads do not meet these standards.
Therefore, these standards shall be applied to newly constructed or, when feasible,
reconstructed County roads.
Table 6-2. County Road Design Standards – Within UGBs and Urban Unincorporated
Communities
Roadway Classification
Average
Daily Traffic
Roadway Width (feet)1
Sidewalk
Width
(feet)
Right-of-
Way
Width
(feet)
Travel
Lanes
Bike
Lanes2
On-Street
Parking Total
Local Residential3 0-150 8-14 None Unstriped 28 5 40
Local Commercial/Industrial3 0-600 11-18 None Unstriped 36 5 60
Minor Collector 500-2,500 10-12 None 6-8 36 5 60
Major Collector and Arterial
2 Lanes 2,500-7,500 12 5-6 None 36 5 60
4 Lanes >7,500 12-13 6 None 62 5 80
Notes:
1. Additional construction requirements are detailed in the Coos County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance.
2. Bike lanes are required on Major Collector and Arterial roads per the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012)
3. On-street parking may be permitted on local streets but would not be striped. Travel lane widths reflect variation in travelway with and
without on-street parking (6-foot parking width assumed for residential and 7-foot width assumed for commercial/industrial).
Major Collector/Arterial
(4-Lanes)
5’ Sidewalk
5’ Sidewalk
80’ Right-of-Way
Major Collector/Arterial
(2-Lanes)
Minor Collector/Local Commercial/Local Industrial
Local Residential
5’ Sidewalk
5’ Sidewalk
6” Curb6” Curb
5’ Sidewalk
5’ Sidewalk
5’ Sidewalk
5’ Sidewalk
50’ Right-of-Way
60’ Right-of-Way
60’ Right-of-Way
28’ Travel Surface
36’ Travel Surface
62’ Travel Surface
36’ Travel Surface
6’Bike Lane
6’Bike Lane
6” Curb6” Curb
6’Bike Lane
6’Bike Lane
Not to Scale
Figure 6-3
County Roads Typical Cross-Sections: Within City Urban Growth Boundary
36' Travel Surface60' Right-of-Way
40'
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-4
Access Management
Access management along a roadway corridor incorporates planning, design, and
implementation of land use and transportation policies and strategies that control the flow of
traffic between the roadway and the surrounding land. Access management policies and
strategies apply to driveways and other roadways and are designed to achieve a balance
between the need to provide safe and efficient travel with the ability to access individual
destinations.
Access management is an important tool for promoting safe and efficient travel for both local
and long distance users along a roadway. Research has clearly shown a direct correlation
between the number of access points and collision rates. Typically, as the number of access
points increases, so do collision rates. Experience throughout the United States has also shown
that a well-managed access plan for a street system can minimize local cost for transportation
improvements needed to provide additional capacity and/or access improvements along
unmanaged roadways. Therefore, it is essential that all levels of government maintain the
efficiency of existing roadways through better access management. One objective of the Coos
County TSP is to develop an access management policy that maintains and enhances the
integrity (safety and capacity) of state highways and county roads in Coos County.
Access Management Techniques
Access management can be accomplished through a number of strategies and specific
techniques that differ in large urban areas versus rural areas. Based on existing and forecast
levels of traffic and development in Coos County, the most suitable access management
strategy would appear to be management of the number of access points and their spacing.
The following techniques describe how the number of access points to a road can be restricted
or reduced:
• Restrictions on spacing between access points (driveways) and public/private roads
based on the type of development and the speed along the road;
• Sharing of access points between adjacent properties;
• Providing driveway access via collector or local roadways where possible;
• Constructing frontage roads to separate local traffic from through-traffic;
• Offsetting driveways at proper distances to produce T-intersections that minimize the
number of conflict points between traffic using the driveways and through traffic;
• Installing median barriers to control conflicts associated with left-turn movements (in or
out of driveway or roadway); and
• Installing barriers to the property along the arterial to restrict access width to a
minimum.
Access Management Requirements for State Highways
In Oregon, state laws and policies guide planning and management of the State Highway
System, including access management of highway segments within both urban and rural areas.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-5
Access management along all state highways in Oregon is regulated by an administrative rule
specifically drafted to implement the access management policies adopted in the 1999 Oregon
Highway Plan (OHP). The OHP specifies an access management classification system for state
facilities and establishes standards and guidelines to be applied when making access
management assignments for highways based upon their classification. Division 51 (OAR 734-
051) is the leading document on access management on state highways.
As identified in Chapter 3 and summarized again in Table 6-3, Coos County has two Statewide
highways, and four District highways. The state access spacing standards for each level of
highway shall be applied.
Table 6-3. State Highways Classification
Number Name
State
Classification
State Freight
Route
Federally
Designated
Truck Route
Scenic
Byway
National
Highway
System
US 1015 Oregon Coast Highway Statewide Yes
1 Yes Yes Yes
OR 425 Coos Bay-Roseburg Highway Statewide Yes Yes
2 No Yes
OR 42S Coquille-Bandon Highway District No No No No
OR 241 Coos River Highway District3 No No No Yes
3
OR 540 Cape Arago Highway District No No Yes4 No
OR 542 Powers Highway District No No No No
Notes:
1. US 101 is a freight route from the Coos-Douglas County Line at milepost 220.58 to the junction with OR 42 at milepost 244.27.
2. OR 42 is a federally designated truck route from US 101 at milepost 0.0 to the junction with OR 42S at milepost 10.85. The designation of
through truck routes help provide for the efficient movement of goods while balancing and maintaining neighborhood livability, public
safety, and minimizing maintenance costs of the roadway system.
3. OR 241 is a statewide highway at the junction with US 101 and is part of the National Highway System from US 101 at to the Bunker Hill
Industrial Area access on Mullen Road.
4. OR 540 is a scenic byway from Shore Edge Drive at milepost 8.74 to the end of the highway at Cape Arago State Park.
5. The OHP classifies US 101 as an Expressway from 1st Street in Coos Bay (MP 239.89) to the junction with OR 42 (MP 244.27). The OHP
classifies OR 42 as an Expressway from the junction with OR 42 (MP 0) to West Central Street in Coquille (MP 9.97) and then again from
Filter Plant Road in Coquille (MP 13.19) to Ash Street in Myrtle Point (MP 20.53).
Source: 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, July 2006.
Access Management Requirements for County Roads
By law, Coos County has authority to prescribe access management standards. According to
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 374.425, “In connection with the acquisition of real property for
right-of-way for a throughway described in ORS 374.420, the county court or board of county
commissioners may prescribe the location, width, nature and extent of any right of access that
pertains to such real property.” [Amended by 1965 c.364 s.2].
This plan includes access management standards that shall be implemented as new
development occurs or as redevelopment occurs. Access standards shall be reviewed and
applied during the County’s development review process before building permits are issued.
When developing access management standards to be applied to new development or
redevelopment, the County shall address access spacing relative to existing driveways and
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-6
public roads based on the level of County road, access design, intersection and roadway sight
distance, signing, illumination, and coordination of design with other utilities. Other factors
may also be applied.
The access spacing standards for public street intersections on County roads is 500 feet, for
both collectors and local roads. The access spacing standard for private access intersections on
major and minor collector roads is 200 feet and on local roads is50 feet. Where feasible,
private accesses to major and minor collector roadways should be minimized or combined to
increase access spacing and minimize conflict points.
Traffic Operations Standards
As identified in the Goals and Objectives section of this TSP, an overarching goal is to “… strive
to provide and encourage a transportation system that promotes safety and convenience for
citizens and travelers and that strengthens the local and regional economy by facilitating the
flow of goods and services.” Traffic operations standards are one key way of maintaining
desirable performance levels, which can vary for different facility types.
Two generally accepted performance measures can be used when evaluating traffic operations
of roadways and intersections. One option is to calculate the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio
while the other assigns a letter grade from A to F associated with a particular level of service
(LOS). Both the LOS and v/c ratio concepts require consideration of factors that include traffic
demand, capacity of the intersection or roadway, delay, frequency of interruptions in traffic
flow, relative freedom for traffic maneuvers, driving comfort, convenience, and operating cost.
Although v/c standards are applied for county and state facilities, level of service (LOS) is a
widely recognized and accepted measure and descriptor of traffic operations and is therefore
also used for evaluation.
Policy 1F of the OHP establishes mobility standards for state facilities and intersecting
roadways. These standards are based on v/c ratio because the LOS represents a range of values
and implementation of the standard can be problematic in some circumstances. Table 6 of the
OHP outlines maximum v/c ratios for peak hour operating conditions by highway category and
location (inside or outside UGBs), along with other designations specific to the state highway
system. These standards were discussed in Chapter 4.
Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) mobility standards are applied for existing and future no build
conditions (no/limited geometric changes) while Highway Design Manual (HDM) mobility
standards are applied in conjunction with any design changes in future build projects along
state facilities. HDM standards can be found in Table 10-1 of the most recent version of the
manual. They are generally more restrictive than the OHP mobility standards. As with the OHP,
HDM standards are specific to highway category and location (inside or outside UGBs), along
with other designations specific to the state highway system.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-7
The County employs v/c ratio as its primary method for measuring performance, with the LOS
criteria serving as a secondary measurement. A maximum v/c ratio of 0.85 should be
maintained for all County-maintained intersections during a typical weekday peak hour9.
The Coos County Zoning and Land Use Development Ordinance (Section 6.2.400.5) provides
traffic impact analysis requirements. Traffic impact analyses, when required for proposed plan
amendments, zone changes, or land developments, must demonstrate that the maximum v/c
ratios will not be exceeded. For intersections where one or more approaches are maintained
by another agency (city or ODOT), the more restrictive of the County’s or other agency’s
standards should be applied. At signalized intersections, the standard should be applied to the
overall intersection operation. At unsignalized intersections, the standard should be applied to
the intersection’s ‘critical’ or ‘worst’ movement. All analyses should follow the methodology
outlined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual10.
Roadway Improvement Projects
The roadway improvement projects in this TSP were developed to address specific deficiencies,
safety issues, or access concerns. These project lists are based upon available standards,
warrants, perceived need, safety data, traffic operations, and community livability. Projects
were not limited to roadway issues, although most projects are roadway-related.
Roadway improvement projects have been grouped into the following categories:
• Pavement Improvements
• Bridge Improvements
• Natural Hazard Mitigation Improvements
• Safety Improvements
• Other System Improvements
Tables summarizing the improvements on County and State facilities have been prepared for
each category of improvement and the approximate location of the improvement is illustrated
in related figures. Because projects are identified based on current and expected needs within
the next 20 years, implementation is recommended based on the following priorities:
• High Priority (next 0 to 5 years)
• Medium Priority (5 to 10 years)
• Low Priority (10 to 20 years)
Estimated year 2010 project costs include design, construction, and contingency costs. They
are preliminary estimates and do not include right-of-way acquisition, water or sewer facilities,
or detailed intersection design.
9 The County operational standards were developed as part of this TSP update.
10 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-8
Pavement Improvements
County and state roadway segments have been identified for paving improvements based upon
currently assessed conditions, functional classification, and route use. Table 6-4 summarizes
the proposed improvements and recommended priorities for implementation and Figure 6-4
illustrates approximate locations.
Table 6-4. Proposed Roadway Surface Improvements
Project
ID County Road Name (Road ID)
Length/
Total Roadway
(miles)
Existing1
Width
(feet)
Proposed
Width
(feet)
Functional
Classification
Cost2
(2010 $)
Proposed Paved Roadway Segments to be Improved
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
R-1 Sitkum Lane (1C) 2.00 of 13.03 21 25 Major Collector $1,030,000
R-2 Beach Loop Road (29B) 0.75 of 2.63 24 28 Major Collector $440,000
R-3 Old Broadbent Road (20B) 1.75 of 5.10 21 25 Major Collector $910,000
R-4 Old Broadbent Road (20E) 0.50 of 5.10 20 24 Major Collector $300,000
R-5 North Bank Lane (5B) 1.50 of 4.30 20 24 Major Collector $910,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
R-6 Lampa Lane (4B) 1.50 of 12.40 23 27 Major Collector $850,000
R-7 Seven Devils Road (33A) 0.75 of 5.53 22 26 Major Collector $410,000
R-8 Seven Devils Road (33B) 1.25 of 6.34 24 28 Major Collector $720,000
R-9 Shelley Road (147B) 1.00 of 2.03 24 28 Major Collector $580,000
Proposed Gravel Roadway Segments to be Paved
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
R-10 Sitkum Lane (1G) 10.45 of 10.45 (All) 18 22 Major Collector $7,970,000
R-11 Fairview-Sumner Lane (59G) 4.38 of 4.38 (All) 20 24 Major Collector $3,260,000
R-12 Gravelford Lane (24G) 3.76 of 3.76 (All) 24 28 Local $3,130,000
R-13 Lee Valley Road (2G) 3.46 of 3.46 (All) 24 28 Minor Collector $2,930,000
R-14 Seven Devils Road (33G) 3.48 of 3.48 (All) 20 24 Minor Collector $1,780,000
Low Priority / Long Term (10-15 Years)
R-15 Old Broadbent Road (20G) 2.52 of 2.52 (All) wa 24 Major Collector $1,800,000
R-16 Fairview Road (9G) 3.31 of 3.31 (All) 20 24 Minor Collector $2,550,000
R-17 North Lake Lane (186G) 2.72 of 2.72 (All) 18 22 Major Collector $1,300,000
R-18 Shutters Landing Lane (25G) 4.75 of 4.75 (All) 18 22 Minor Collector $2,270,000
R-19 Parkersburg Road (91G) 2.51 of 2.51 (All) 20 24 Major Collector $1,310,000
R-20 Catching Creek Lane (19G) 1.54 of 1.54 (All) 20 24 Minor Collector $1,120,000
R-21 McKinley Lane (13G) 6.47 of 6.47 (All) 20 24 Minor Collector $4,700,000
R-22 West Fork Millicoma Road (47G) 3.50 of 5.19 24 28 Minor Collector $2,060,000
R-23 East Fork Millicoma Road (49G) 2.75 of 2.75 (All) 20 24 Local $1,430,000
Notes:
1. Values may not match the average roadway width represented in Table 3-2. Value is based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) that
represents the observed width for the specified segment(s).
2. Costs vary for segments with similar length and width due to varying pavement depth
Source: Coos County Pavement Condition Index, 2009 and Coos County Road Inventory
R-5R-9
R-8
R-7
R-6
R-4
R-3
R-2
R-1
R-28
R-26
R-25
R-12
R-23
R-22
R-21
R-20
R-19
R-18
R-17
R-13
R-16R-11
R-14
R-15
R-10
R-24
Coos Bay
North Bend
Bandon
Coquille
Lakeside
Port Orford
Myrtle Point
Powers
Reedsport
101
42
42
241
42
42
542
101
101
540
Pavement ImprovementProjects
Source Data: ODOT, Coos County 2007-08
Coos County TSP Update
Figure 6-4
Legend
Printing Date: 9/29/2010 1:52 PMFilename: P:\O\ODOT00000631\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\TM6\Pavement Improvement Projects 11x17.mxd
3 0 31.5 Miles
Pavement Improvement Projects
R-0
R-0
Functional Classification
City Boundary
Coos County Boundary
State Highway/ArterialsMajor Collector
Minor Collector
Local
(See Tables 6-5 & 6-6 in TSP documentfor project description)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-9
The County’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) indicates that approximately 10 percent of the
paved roadways in the Coos County system have Poor pavement conditions and another one
percent has Very Poor conditions. Because it is not financially feasible to pave all substandard
roadway segments, improvements will be focused on strategic and heavily used locations,
specifically all major collector segments with Poor or Very Poor pavement conditions, as
presented in Table 6-4. Detour routes, as identified by county and ODOT, will be a priority for
paving improvements.
Coos County also has major and minor collector roadways that are still gravel surfaces.
Table 6-4 also identifies proposed collector road segments that would be upgraded from gravel
to pavement along with several key local road segments. Reconstruction to County design
standards is not feasible for most of the existing roadways because of design and other
constraints. A minimum paved width of 24 feet is recommended, but a minimum of 20 feet is
acceptable for two-way traffic, depending on anticipated traffic volumes and functional
classification. Cost opinions for paving roadways at their existing (or minimum) widths, plus 2-
foot shoulders on either side, are included in Table 6-4. The proposed 4-foot widening serves
as a realistic alternative to building each roadway to meet a uniform cross sectional standard;
however, it is still likely that constraints along some segments will not allow for this increase in
width. The proposed roadway segments have been rounded up to the nearest quarter mile to
account for the County’s standard paving practice.
Several segments of state highways have poor pavement ratings within Coos County. Although
the County has no direct control over the state highways within its boundaries, the County
plans to coordinate with ODOT to set priorities for improving these highway sections. Table 6-5
provides a list of proposed state highway segments to be improved, including cost opinions and
Figure 6-4 illustrates approximate locations.
Table 6-5. State Highway Segments to be Improved
Project
ID
State Highway
Milepoint Length Pavement
Cost (2010 $) Begin End (miles) Rating 2008
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
R-24 US 101 Two Mile Road - Laurel Grove 278.30 280.55 2.25 Poor $1,680,000
R-25 OR 540 Begin State Juris. - Sunset Bay S.P. 4.50 11.00 6.50 Poor $4,320,000
R-26 OR 241 Kruse Road - End Of Pavement 15.00 19.00 4.00 Poor $2,690,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
R-27 OR 542 Milepoint 8 Slide Section 8.00 8.75 0.75 Poor $1,680,000
R-28 OR 241 US-101 – 16th
Avenue 0.00 0.75 0.75 Poor $4,320,000
Source: ODOT, Pavement Services Unit, 2008 Pavement Condition Report
Issues regarding pavement conditions on OR 542 are assumed to be addressed with the Draft
2010-2013 STIP Project Number 13933 which addresses the Burma Slide area.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-10
Bridge Improvements
Bridge improvements have been identified based upon four different factors: structural
deficiency, functional obsolescence, sufficiency rating (definitions in Chapter 3), and safety.
Structural deficiency, functional obsolescence, and sufficiency ratings were established through
the 2008 bridge inventory from ODOT’s Bridge Maintenance Section. Generally, bridges with a
sufficiency rating of 80 or less are eligible for rehabilitation, while bridges with a sufficiency of
50 or less are eligible for replacement.
In order to identify noteworthy safety concerns at bridge locations, crash data from the most
recent five-year period available (January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007) was evaluated.
County Bridges
Of the 111 bridges in Coos County, three are identified as structurally deficient and seven are
identified as functionally obsolete. In addition to those bridges identified with deficiencies, 41
others are identified as not deficient but have sufficiency ratings that indicate they are eligible
for replacement (3 bridges) or rehabilitation (38 bridges).
Two of the three structurally deficient bridges are currently in the draft 2010-2013 STIP for
replacement. The County has applied for funding in the 2015 STIP for bridge #16349 on
Gaylord Road. These bridges are summarized in Table 6-6 and Figure 6-5 illustrates
approximate locations.
Table 6-6. County Bridges to be Rehabilitated or Replaced
Project
ID Bridge ID Milepoint Name – Deficiency STIP Programming & Cost
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
B-1 16349 0 South Fork Coquille River, County Road 153G
(Gaylord Road) – Structurally Deficient
Apply for 2012-2015 STIP
B-2 08926 0.72 Beaver Creek, County Road 5A (North Bank
Lane) – Structurally Deficient
STIP Project #16047 – Replacement
Begin in 2013 - Cost $6,088,000
B-3 15409 5.79 Fish Trap Creek, FAS A417 (Robison) –
Structurally Deficient
STIP Project #16046 – Replacement
Begin in 2013 - Cost $817,000
B-4 11C112 2.75 Haynes Slough Bridge – Replace Tidegate
and Bridge
Apply for funding – Approximate Cost
$1,500,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
B-5 11C13A 3.9 Two Mile Creek, County Road 11G (Two Mile
Lane) – Functionally Obsolete
Apply for funding in future
B-6 11C43A 5.75 Myrtle Point, County Road 32 (Myrtle Creek
Road) – Functionally Obsolete
Apply for funding in future
Sources: ODOT Bridge Maintenance Section, Draft 2010-2013 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The functionally obsolete bridges are all too narrow and some have issues at the bridge
approaches, but are rated structurally sufficient. The crash data analyzed to identify safety
concerns does not show any crashes associated with these facilities. However, several of these
!
! !!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!B-6
B-5
B-4
B-3
B-2
B-1
B-9B-8
B-7
B-15
B-14
B-13B-12
B-11
B-10
Coos Bay
North Bend
Bandon
Coquille
Lakeside
Port Orford
Myrtle Point
Powers
Reedsport
£¤101UV42
UV42
UV241
UV42
UV42
UV542
£¤101
£¤101
UV540
Bridge Improvement Projects
E Source Data: ODOT, Coos County 2007-08
Coos County TSP Update
Figure 6-5
Legend
Printing Date: 9/16/2010 12:33 PMFilename: P:\O\ODOT00000631\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\TM6\Bridge Improvement Projects 11x17.mxd
4 0 42 Miles
! Bridge Improvement Projects
R-0
B-0(See Tables 6-7 & 6-8 in TSP documentfor project description)
Functional Classification
City BoundaryCoos County Boundary
State Highway/Arterials
LocalMinor CollectorMajor Collector
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-11
bridges are on roadways with a functional classification of Rural Major Collector. These bridges
have been identified as projects to potentially pursue for STIP funding in the future.
State Bridges
Of the 56 state bridges in Coos County, 9 are identified as structurally deficient and 8 are
identified as functionally obsolete. In addition to those bridges identified with deficiencies, 16
others are identified as not deficient but have sufficiency ratings that indicate they are eligible
for replacement (1 bridge) or rehabilitation (15 bridges).
All but one of the structurally deficient bridges are currently in the draft 2010-2013 STIP for
some kind of improvement. These bridges are summarized in Table 6-7 and Figure 6-5
illustrates approximate locations.
Table 6-7. State Bridges to be Rehabilitated or Replaced
Project
ID Bridge ID Highway Milepoint Name STIP Programming & Cost
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
B-7 03173A OR 42 5.37 Beaver Creek, OR 42 EB STIP Project #14225 Repair Begin in
2010 - Cost $13,032,000
B-8 08842 OR 42 23.37 Middle Fork Coquille River, OR 42
at MP 23.37
STIP Project #14225 Repair Begin in
2010 - Cost $13,032,000
B-9 03212A OR 42 26.72 Endicot Creek, OR 42 STIP Project #14225 Repair Begin in
2010 - Cost $13,032,000
B-10 08935 OR 42 30.59 Middle Fork Coquille River, OR 42
at MP 30.59
STIP Project #14225 Repair Begin in
2010 - Cost $13,032,000
B-11 00482B OR 42 37.31 Sandy Creek, OR 42 STIP Project #14225 Repair Begin in
2010 - Cost $13,032,000
B-12 09185 OR 42 40.56 Middle Fork Coquille River, OR 42
at MP 40.56
STIP Project #14225 Repair Begin in
2010 - Cost $13,032,000
B-13 09186 OR 42 40.77 Middle Fork Coquille River, OR 42
at MP 40.77
STIP Project #14225 Repair Begin in
2010 - Cost $13,032,000
B-14 01132F OR 241 0.42 Isthmus Slough, OR 241 (Eastside) STIP Project #15846 East Approach
Begin in 2010 - Cost $7,163,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
B-15 01492A OR 241 14.07 West Fork Millicoma River, OR 241 Apply for funding in future
Sources: ODOT Bridge Maintenance Section, Draft 2010-2013 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The Isthmus Slough Bridge (#01132F) has a project planned to address the most severe issues
at the east end of the bridge but the bridge will remain structurally deficient. The existing
bridge will remain until funding can be identified for a future repair or replacement project.
The West Fork Millicoma River Bridge (#01492A) is identified as structurally deficient but there
are currently no projects to address the deficiency. This bridge is located approximately 14
miles from US 101, carries approximately 600 vehicles per day, and currently has no weight
restrictions. Structural deficiency should be addressed eventually when funding is available.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-12
Natural Hazard Mitigation Improvements
Natural hazards, such as landslides, are responsible for damage to roads and bridges around
Coos County each year. While it is not possible to mitigate all slide or other natural hazard
areas because of both limited funding and ongoing vulnerability, some locations have been
identified for improvements. The Coos County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan includes a list of
mitigation on county roads along with estimated costs for the mitigation. This information,
along with additional projects identified by Coos County is summarized in Table 6-8 and
Figure 6-6 illustrates approximate locations. These mitigation measures typically involve
grading slides and improving drainage systems to divert water.
Table 6-8. Natural Hazards Mitigation
Project
ID Hazard
County Road Name
(Road ID) Milepoint
Functional
Classification
Estimated Cost
(2010 $)
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
NH-1 Slide East Bay Road (45) NA Major Collector $7,500,0001
NH-2 Flooding Beach Loop Road 1.5-1.8 Major Collector4 $2,600,000
2
NH-3 Slide Reedsford Road (81) 0.5 Local $350,0002
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
NH-4 Slide Fairview Road (9A) NA Major Collector $60,000 - $70,0001
NH-5 Slide Lee Valley Road (2A) NA Major Collector $50,0001
NH-6 Slide Lone Pine Lane (60B) NA Major Collector $50,0001
NH-7 Slide Lampa Lane (4C) NA Major Collector $25,0001
NH-8 Slide Sitkum Lane (1B) NA Major Collector $50,000 - $75,0001
NH-9 Slide South Coos River Lane (6A) NA Major Collector $10,0001
NH-10 Slide Old Broadbent Road (20A) 0.5, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7 Major Collector $500,0002
NH-11 Slide Old Broadbent Road (20G) 3.2 Major Collector $8,0002
NH-12 Slide Lampa Lane (4A) 1.4 Major Collector $180,0002
NH-13 Slide Fairview Road (9G) NA Minor Collector $100,0001
Low Priority / Long Term (10-20 Years)
NH-14 Slide Sumerlin Road (195G) NA Local $25,0001
NH-15 Slide North Fork Road (12) NA Local $100,0001
NH-16 Slide Two Mile Lane (11) NA Local $25,0001
NH-17 Slide Ross Inlet Road (18) NA Local $50,0001
NH-18 Slide West Catching Road (205) NA Local $5,0001
NH-19 Slide Whiskey Run Lane (217) NA Local $25,0001
NH-20 Slide Two Mile Lane (11B) 1.5 Local $60,0002
NH-21 Erosion McKinley Lane (13G) 3.4 Local $40,0002
NH-22 Slide Upper Four Mile Lane (98G) 4.1 Local $75,0002
Notes:
1. Project identified in Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. East Bay Road project cost has been modified based on engineering studies
performed since the plan was prepared.
2. Project identified by Coos County Roads Department.
Source: Coos County Road Department and 2005 Coos County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
NH-3
NH-9
NH-6
NH-1
NH-5
NH-4
NH-7
NH-2
NH-8
NH-22
NH-19
NH-18
NH-17
NH-20NH-16
NH-15
NH-14
NH-21
NH-13
NH-12
NH-11NH-10
Coos Bay
North Bend
Bandon
Coquille
Lakeside
Port Orford
Myrtle Point
Powers
Reedsport
£¤101UV42
UV42
UV241
UV42
UV42
UV542
£¤101
£¤101
UV540
Natural HazardMitigation Projects
E Source Data: ODOT, Coos County 2007-08
Coos County TSP Update
Figure 6-6
Legend
Printing Date: 9/16/2010 11:33 AMFilename: P:\O\ODOT00000631\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\TM6\Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects 11x17.mxd
4 0 42 Miles
! Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects
R-0
NH-0
Functional Classification
City BoundaryCoos County Boundary
State Highway/ArterialsMajor CollectorMinor CollectorLocal
(See Table 6-9 in TSP documentfor project description)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-13
Coos County has had engineering studies completed on East Bay Drive, which is the highest
priority roadway since it serves as a detour route for the McCullough Bridge. The study
identified three locations with improvement costs totaling $7.5 million. White’s curve is the
number one issue.
The Coos County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan identifies two short term action items that
should be considered as recommendations in this TSP:
• Landslide Short Term Action Item #1: Identify and map high risk slide areas to create an
accurate logistical assessment.
• Landslide Short Term Action Item #2: Evaluate current and high hazard slides for
prioritization and explore mitigation possibilities. The Plan lists eight specific slide corridors
for conducting engineering studies: Beach Loop Road, Coos River Highway, Ocean
Boulevard, Bald Hill, North Fork Road, US 101, Lampa Mountain Road, OR 42 to Powers
Safety Improvements
Improving safety throughout the Coos County roadway network has been identified as a
priority, and is consistent with the goals identified in Chapter 2 of this TSP. A roadway
characteristics audit11 was performed in conjunction with a detailed crash history analysis12 to
identify potential improvement locations. While some projects are targeted at fatal and serious
injury crash locations, some projects were identified due to roadway attributes and
environmental factors that may to contribute to future crashes.
Table 6-9 lists potential safety improvement projects that have been identified for state
highways along with cost opinions for each project. Figure 6-7 illustrates approximate locations
for the improvements. Priorities were established based on the frequency of crashes and state
priority indexing. Prior to implementation, each improvement should be evaluated with
respect to their corresponding State warrant.
Table 6-9. Roadway Safety Projects – State Highways
Project
ID
Highway
Name Location (Milepoint) Potential Mitigation Measures
Estimated Cost
(2010 $)
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
S-1 US 101 Tugman State Park and City of
Lakeside
Speed Zone, left-turn lane, right-turn deceleration
lanes, access management
$250,000
S-2 US 101 Wildwood/Crannog Road
(MP 227.0 – 227.2)
Advance signage and turn lanes $75,000
S-3 US 101 N. of Bullards Beach State Park &
North Bank Lane (MP 259.0)
Advance signage for intersection, signage warning of
curve, and chevrons
$5,000
S-4 OR 42 Near Davis Slough Bridge (MP 1.0) Delineation, shoulder improvements, guardrail $50,000
S-5 OR 42 Alder Hill Lane to Old City-County
Road (MP 6.7 – 8.3)
Evaluate effectiveness of spot improvements for this
segment
$15,000
11
The roadway characteristics audit was performed using aerial imagery and ODOT Video Log. 12
The crash data used in this safety investigation was from the most recent five-year period available (January 1, 2003 to
December 31, 2007).
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !! !!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
! !!
!
! !
!!! !
!
!
!!
S-48
S-47
S-52
S-49
S-51
S-9
S-8S-7
S-6
S-5
S-4
S-1
S-3
S-2
S-40S-39
S-38
S-46S-45
S-44S-43
S-42S-41
S-13
S-12S-11
S-35S-34
S-33 S-32
S-22S-31
S-30S-29
S-28
S-27S-26
S-25S-19S-18
S-24
S-23
S-17
S-16
S-15
S-14
Coos Bay
North Bend
Bandon
Coquille
Lakeside
Port Orford
Myrtle Point
Powers
Reedsport
S-10
S-20
£¤101UV42
UV42
UV241
UV42
UV42
UV542
£¤101
£¤101
UV540
Roadway Safety Projects
E Source Data: ODOT, Coos County 2007-08
Coos County TSP Update
Figure 6-7
Legend
Printing Date: 9/29/2010 1:53 PMFilename: P:\O\ODOT00000631\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\TM6\Roadway Safety Projects 11x17.mxd
4 0 42 Miles
! Roadway Safety Projects
R-0
S-0
Functional Classification
City BoundaryCoos County Boundary
State Highway/ArterialsMajor CollectorMinor CollectorLocal
(See Tables 6-10 & 6-11 in the TSP documentfor project description)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-14
Table 6-9. Roadway Safety Projects – State Highways
Project
ID
Highway
Name Location (Milepoint) Potential Mitigation Measures
Estimated Cost
(2010 $)
S-6 OR 42 Segments east and west of OR 542
Junction (MP 23.0 – 24.5)
Evaluate effectiveness of spot improvements for this
segment
$5,000
S-7 OR 540 Barview and North (MP 5.0 - 7.0) Access management plan TBD
S-8 OR 540 Coos Head Road to Oceanview
Road (MP 9.24 - 10.08)
Clear roadside to improve sight distance $10,000
S-9 OR 542 Woodward Creek Road to City
Limits (MP 17.0 - 17.4)
Delineation, chevrons $5,000
S-10 OR 42S Curve (turn) east of Prosper
Junction Road (MP 2.17)
Delineation, improve retro-reflectivity of arrow sign
or replace with chevrons
$5,000
S-11 OR 42S Isolated curve east of Bear Creek/
Parkersburg Road (MP 3.43)
Advance signage, chevrons $5,000
S-12 OR 42S Reverse curves west of Bear
Creek/Parkersburg Road (MP 2.38)
Clear roadside to improve signage visibility $5,000
S-13 OR 42S Harlocker Hill Road (MP 13.18) Advance intersection signage $7,500
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
S-14 US 101 Beaver Loop Road (MP 226.42) Advance signage and right-turn lane extension $50,000
S-15 US 101 South of Kadora Lane & North Bay
Road (MP 231.0 – 231.2)
Roadway delineation $5,000
S-16 US 101 US 101 Wayside (MP 231.8 -232.3) Advance signage and right-turn deceleration lanes $50,000
S-17 US 101 OR 42 Junction (MP 244.0 – 244.5) Roadway delineation, illumination, reduced speeds $10,000
S-18 OR 42 Guerin Lane (MP 23.28) Clear roadside to improve sight distance $5,000
S-20 OR 42 Myrtle Creek Road west of Bridge
(MP 30.50)
Add eastbound deceleration lane $225,000
S-21 OR 542 1 mile east of Robbins Creek
Bridge (MP 4.5 – 5.0)
Safety edge, guardrail, shoulder improvement $50,000
S-22 OR 42 Small Creek curve east of Bridge Realign curves; complete apart from passing lanes if
latter is not build within planning horizon
$2,000,000
Low Priority / Long Term (10-20 Years)
S-23 US 101 Prosper Jct. Road (MP 260.13) Northbound right-turn deceleration lane $50,000
S-24 US 101 Beach Loop Road (MP 277.58) Southbound right-turn deceleration lane $100,000 -
$250,000
S-25 OR 42 McMullen Creek Road (MP 28.59) Westbound left-turn bay and eastbound shoulder
striped as right-turn deceleration lane
$5,000
S-26 OR 42 Myrtle Creek Road (MP 30.5) Extend eastbound right-turn deceleration lane and
advance signage
$100,000
S-27 OR 42 Sharp Reverse Curves (MP 32.0) Advisory speed signage and chevrons for both
curves in both directions
$5,000
S-28 OR 42 Wall Gulch to Coos County
Speedway (MP 0.99 to 2.31)
Realign horizontal curve and decrease grade
separation at Wall Gulch; remove overhead utilities
from clear zone and reduce grade separation
$3,800,000
S-29 OR 42 Beaver Creek/Overland Road
accesses (MP 4.81 – 5.20)
Close Overland Road access at MP 4.81 and leg to
Overland Road at MP 4.99; realign south Beaver
Creek Road access at MP 5.15
$265,000
S-30 OR 42 North Bank Road Intersection
(MP 6.65 – 6.76)
Improve sight distances for westbound lanes and
widen shoulders
$450,000
S-31 OR 42 Bridge Intersection (MP 30.69) Construct left-turn pockets $300,000
S-32 OR 540 Charleston - South Slough to
Roosevelt Blvd. (MP 8.3 - 8.6)
Access management plan TBD
S-33 OR 540 Sunset Bay State Park State
Wayside (MP 11.2)
Delineation, chevrons $10,000
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-15
Table 6-9. Roadway Safety Projects – State Highways
Project
ID
Highway
Name Location (Milepoint) Potential Mitigation Measures
Estimated Cost
(2010 $)
S-34 OR 241 Catching Slough Road (MP 2.33) Advance signage $5,000
S-35 OR 241 S. Coos River Lane (MP 3.52) Advance signage $5,000
S-36 OR 241 E. Bay Drive (MP 3.89) Advance signage $5,000
S-37 OR 542 Curve at Parsonage Lane (MP 2.4) Advance signage for intersection, curve warning $5,000
S-38 OR 542 Curves at MP 6.1 - 6.2 Delineation, advance signage, guardrail $30,000
S-39 OR 542 Baker Creek Lane (MP 15.5) Advance signage ("T intersection ahead") $5,000
S-40 OR 542 Curves east of Baker Creek Lane at
(MP 16.15 - 16.5)
Guardrail $25,000
S-41 OR 42S Prosper Jct. Road/Morrison Road
(MP 1.59)
Advance signage and right-turn deceleration lane $65,000
S-42 OR 42S Lampa Lane (MP 7.25) Eastbound right-turn deceleration lane and
westbound left-turn bay
$60,000
S-43 OR 42S Curve (MP 10.45) Relocate or improve advisory curve signage,
consider signing as reverse curve
$5,000
S-44 OR 42S Riverton Road (MP 10.8) Advance intersection signage $7,500
S-45 OR 42S Fat Elk Road (MP 14.65) Advance intersection signage, eastbound right-turn
deceleration lane
$60,000
S-46 OR 42S Fishtrap Road (MP 16.60) Advance intersection signage, westbound right-turn
deceleration lane
$75,000 -
$100,000
Corridor-level assessments (safety audits) are proposed along the high crash county roadways
listed in Table 6-10. At a minimum, assessments for county roads should address safety
concerns regarding:
1. Lane departures occurring at sharp horizontal curves, which may be mitigated by
improving delineation (striping, rumble, markers, etc.) and advisory signage (including
replacing existing signage to increase retroreflectivity or improve placement)
2. Roadway segments/intersections with deficient sight distance, which may be mitigated
by clearing brush, trees, and other obstacles.
The costs shown below include a corridor safety assessment and essential improvements.
Conducting safety assessments should be a high priority although recommended improvements
may be implemented over a greater period of time.
Table 6-10. County Road Safety
Project ID County Road (ID) Potential Mitigation Measures Cost (2010 $)*
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
S-47 East Bay Drive (45)
Improvements likely to be identified include:
delineation, advance signage, reduced speeds,
safety edges, guardrail, and improved shoulders, but
other safety measure may also be identified.
$250,000
S-48 Libby Lane (184) $100,000
S-49 Seven Devils Road (33) $150,000
S-50 Beaver Hill Lane (208) $75,000
S-51 Sitkum Lane (1) $250,000
S-52 Fairview Road (9) $150,000
*Approximate cost for safety assessment and delineation-level improvements. Significant improvements such as shoulder widening or curve
straightening would require additional funding.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-16
Other System Improvements
Additional projects that involve either capacity or connectivity are listed in Table 6-11 and
approximate locations are illustrated in Figure 6-8. These projects have been identified in other
plans (Corridor Plans and City TSPs) or through the public involvement process.
Table 6-11. Other System Improvements
Project
ID Location Description
Estimated Cost
(2010 $)
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
OS-1 TransPacific/US 101 (MP 232.8)1 A traffic signal at the intersection of Transpacific
and US 101 is planned to be used on a temporary
basis during construction of a nearby Liquefied
Natural Gas facility. The County is considering the
need for this traffic signal to become permanent.
Consideration for a traffic signal installation must
comply with OAR 734.020.460.
$250,000
OS-2 OR 42 Passing Lanes
(~MP 29 – 33)2
Construct eastbound and westbound passing lanes
on OR 42 somewhere between MP 29 and MP 33
(identified as high priority in OR 42 Corridor Plan)
$4,200,000
OS-3 East of Bridge Passing Lanes
(MP 31.20-32.80)2
Add westbound and eastbound passing lanes;
straighten curves at MP 32.10 (addressed in TM6
under Other System Improvements)
$4,400,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
OS-4 Coos River Highway (OR 241) at
Olive Barber Road3
Install traffic signal with advance signal head and
eliminate southbound to westbound “slip” lane1
$750,000
OS-5 US 101 at Bunker Hill/Coos River
Highway (OR 241)3
Incorporate ODOT recommendations when
available1
TBD
OS-6 Cedar Point Passing Lane
(MP 8.25 –9.10)2
Extend existing westbound passing lane to the
west; implement if Chrome Plant section not
widened to 4 lanes with 15-20 years
$750,000
OS-7 US 101 at East Bay Drive5 Install southbound left-turn lane $500,000
Low Priority / Long Term (10-20 Years)
OS-8 Chrome Plant to Cedar Point
(MP 7.25 –9.92)2
Widen highway to 4 lanes with left-turn refuges;
provide adequate shoulders
$18,000,000
OS-9 OR 42/S. Adams (MP 12.25)4 Construct left-turn bay $600,000
Beyond 20 Year Planning Horizon
OS-10 Scenic Byway from Cape Arago
Highway to Beaver Hill Road5
Construct a new roadway connection between
Cape Arago Highway and Beaver Hill Road with a
scenic overlook on the north side of Big Devil Gulch
TBD
OS-11 OR 42 Curves east of Upper Rock
Creek Road (MP 41.00 – 43.85)6
Realign curve and widen roadway to address
accidents and geologic hazards
TBD
Notes:
1. Project identified by Coos County.
2. Project identified in the OR 42 Corridor Plan.
3. Project identified in the Coos Bay Transportation System Plan
4. Project identified In the Coquille Transportation System Plan
5. Project identified through public or advisory meeting input.
6. Project identified in OR 42 Corridor Plan
OS-7
OS-9
OS-8
OS-6
OS-3OS-2
OS-4OS-5
OS-1
OS-11
OS-10
Coos Bay
North Bend
Bandon
Coquille
Lakeside
Port Orford
Myrtle Point
Powers
Reedsport
101
42
42
241
42
42
542
101
101
540
Other SystemImprovement Projects
Source Data: ODOT, Coos County 2007-08
Coos County TSP Update
Figure 6-8
Legend
Printing Date: 9/29/2010 1:50 PMFilename: P:\O\ODOT00000631\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\TM6\Other System Improvement Projects 11x17.mxd
4 0 42 Miles
Other Improvement Projects
R-0
OS-0
Functional Classification
City Boundary
Coos County Boundary
State Highway/Arterials
Local
Minor Collector
Major Collector
(See Table 6-12 in the TSP documentfor project description)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-17
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
The pedestrian and bicycle system plan addresses facility needs within Coos County along state
highways and county roads. Currently, there is no extensive network of specifically designated
bicycle routes serving Coos County other than the Oregon Coast Bike Route (OCBR). In rural
areas, the shared roadway is the primary facility for bicycle (and pedestrian) travel.
Roads should include shoulders where bicycle use is high and motor vehicle speeds and
volumes are also high. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan13 recommends shoulders that
are 6 feet wide for bicycle use, although a minimum 4-foot shoulder is considered adequate
when there are physical width limitations. Wider shoulders allow a cyclist to ride far enough
from the edge of pavement to avoid debris and far enough from passing vehicles to avoid
conflicts. When feasible, paved shoulders should be widened to a minimum width of 4 feet (as
recommended in the design standards, Table 6-1) during rehabilitation projects.
Table 6-12 summarizes recommended bicycle improvements on County roads that improve or
augment the OCBR and approximate locations are illustrated in Figure 6-9. This project list also
includes one sidewalk improvement within the Coquille city limits.
Table 6-12. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Project
ID Location Description
Estimated Cost
(2010 $)
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years)
BP-1 Seven Devils Road south of
Cape Arago Highway and
north of US 101
Create ‘gateway’ and/or innovative signage to
inform motorists of shared roadway
$50,000
BP-2 North 8th Street and Airport
Way through Lakeside
Add a southbound bike lane through Lakeside, with
a rest stop at the County Park. The lane would be a
6-foot paved shoulder.
$600,000
BP-3 Coos Head area Conduct a study and develop a cooperative
multimodal management plan
$250,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years)
BP-4 West Central Drive in Coquille,
from Ivy to OR 42
Add a sidewalk on the south side of the street to
extend current improvements from the high school.
$300,000
BP-5 Seven Devils Road/West
Beaver Hill Road/Whiskey Run
Road/ Seven Devils Road
Widen roadway to provide 4- to 6-foot shoulders on
both sides of approximately 15 miles of roadway
(where feasible)
$7,700,000
BP-6 Riverside Drive from US 101 to
Fillmore Avenue (1.3 miles)
Widen roadway to provide 4- to 5-foot shoulders on
both sides of the road (where feasible)
$825,000 -
$935,000
BP-7 Beach Loop Road from Polaris
Lane to US 101 (2.3 miles)
Widen roadway to provide bike lanes, OR Provide
multi-use trail along one side of the roadway
$1,400,000 -
$1,700,000
BP-8 Seven Devils Road from West
Beaver Hill Road to US 101
Following planned paving (R-14), add signage for a
shared-lane bike route along Seven Devils (as an
alternative to the adjacent OCBR section)
$15,000
Note: Beach Loop Road project will need to be consistent with efforts in City of Bandon
13
Draft Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!BP-8
BP-3
BP-6
BP-4
BP-2
BP-1
BP-5
BP-7
Coos Bay
North Bend
Bandon
Coquille
Lakeside
Port Orford
Myrtle Point
Powers
Reedsport
£¤101UV42
UV42
UV241
UV42
UV42
UV542
£¤101
£¤101
UV540
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
E Source Data: ODOT, Coos County 2007-08
Coos County TSP Update
Figure 6-9
Legend
Printing Date: 9/16/2010 12:28 PMFilename: P:\O\ODOT00000631\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\TM6\Bike_Ped Improvement Projects 11x17.mxd
4 0 42 Miles
! Bicycle Improvement Projects
R-0
BP-0
Functional Classification
City BoundaryCoos County Boundary
State Highway/Arterials
LocalMinor CollectorMajor Collector
(See Table 6-13 in the TSP documentfor project description)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-18
Public Transportation Plan
A 2007 study, summarized in the Coos County Coordinated Transportation Plan, identifies
specific needs within the County over the next 20 years. Recommendations have been put
forward as ways of filling identified service gaps, which are designed to enhance the overall
mobility of county residents, and especially to improve freedom of movement and quality of life
for many transit dependent people, and to assure transportation access to jobs, health care and
other basic services. Many of the suggestions for service improvements focus on Coos County
Area Transit, which is understandable since CCAT is the public transit provider in the county.
The recommendations are summarized in Table 6-13.
Table 6-13. Public Transportation Improvements
Project
ID Description
Estimated Cost
(2010 $)
PT- 1 Expand operations to include evenings and weekend service as resources become
available. TBD
PT- 2 Provide more frequent bus service on existing routes. TBD
PT- 3 Restore Coastal Express service to at least five days a week – and possibly more –
and consider extending service to Reedsport and Florence.
TBD
PT- 4 Extend public transportation services to outlying areas of the county. This may
include regularly scheduled, deviated or flexible bus routes, feeder services,
shopping or medical shuttles, and limited dial-a-ride services in currently unserved
communities.
TBD
PT- 5 Restore South Coast Connector service connecting Bay area with Coquille, Bandon
and Myrtle Point.
TBD
PT- 6 Reestablish regularly scheduled bus connections between Charleston and Coos
Bay/North Bend.
TBD
PT- 7 Offer discounted fares or other strategies to address the cost of public
transportation for low income riders. Establish out of county connections, both to
adjacent counties and to distant medical treatment destinations.
TBD
PT- 8 Negotiate service agreements with SW Oregon Community College for enhanced
student transportation services.
TBD
PT- 9 Preserve the existing dial-a-ride services available to older adults and people with
disabilities.
TBD
PT- 10 Expand hours of paratransit service to include evenings and weekends. TBD
PT- 11 Provide higher level of paratransit services to those with special needs. TBD
PT- 12 Develop volunteer driver training and recruitment program (Maintaining a well
trained and enthusiastic countywide pool of volunteer drivers can be a cost
effective way of responding to transportation needs, including out of town medical
trips.)
TBD
Source: Coos County Coordinated Transportation Plan, 2007
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-19
Rail Plan
The Coos Bay Branch of the railroad, currently owned by the International Port of Coos Bay,
runs from Eugene to Coos Bay. The Federal Railroad Administration (FairA) classifies the Coos
Bay Branch as Class 1 and 2 track (maintenance standards requiring maximum speeds of 10 or
25 mph), with Exception status (exemption from maintenance standards) between Coos Bay
and Coquille. The Coos Bay Branch provides connections between Eugene and coastal
communities including Reedsport, Coos Bay and Coquille. The Coos Bay Branch is not subject to
weight or dimensional standards.
In September 2007, the previous owner of the railroad, Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad
(CORP), shut down operations of the Coos Bay Branch line. The International Port of Coos Bay
was authorized by federal ruling to purchase the Coos Bay Branch line from CORP and apply for
a Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loan from the Federal Railroad
Administration to be used as a line of credit.
A railroad rehabilitation project has been awarded funding through the Connect Oregon III
program (8/25/2010 Award List).
Airport Plan
In addition to the four public airports, there are six privately-owned airfields/airstrips and two
private helipads operating in Coos County (see Chapter 3). Conversations with County and City
staff suggest that no future access and roadway needs have been identified for these facilities.
As such, no specific plan is being proposed at this time.
Pipeline Plan
Coos County currently has its own natural gas pipeline operated by NW Natural Gas. In
addition to the existing pipeline, the Pacific Connector project would construct a 230-mile
pipeline from the proposed Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas import terminal located on the
north spit in the Port of Coos Bay to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s gas transmission
system, Tuscarora Gas Transmission’s system and Gas Transmission Northwest’s system, all
located near Malin, Oregon, southwest of Klamath Falls. In addition, the project would
interconnect to Williams’ Northwest Pipeline near Myrtle Creek and Avista Corporation’s
distribution system near Shady Cove.
Water Plan
The Port of Coos Bay is the primary center of maritime commerce for Oregon’s South Coast and
is home to Oregon’s largest coastal deep-draft harbor. An average of 2.5 million tons of cargo
moves through the Port of Coos Bay each year. Inbound and outbound cargo is moved through
Coos Bay’s 15-mile channel, which features six marine terminals, seven deep-draft berths and
several barge facilities.
There is currently an ongoing study to assess the feasibility of modifying sections of the Coos
Bay Channel to accommodate larger vessel traffic. These proposed channel modifications
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation System Plan 6-20
included widening and deepening sections from the entrance at the Pacific Ocean to the
railroad bridge located at approximately river mile 9.2, and adding a turning basin for vessel
maneuvering. Ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of Coos Bay, maintenance dredging of the
channel and inlet, and possible modifications to the jetties would also be part of the proposed
work.
The Port of Bandon has completed 3 phases of their River Walk project plan. A 25,000 square
foot boardwalk with glass enclosed picnic shelter, 100 seat outdoor amphitheater, and a
meandering sidewalk which includes engraved bricks purchased by the public. Rebuilding the
marina for today’s mariners is the next phase. In 2010 through a grant from the Oregon State
Marine Board, the marina is being outfitted with the latest equipment for vessel sewage
pump out and dump station. Environmentally sound disposal of waste is a top priority for the
port.
The Port of Bandon is researching methods fund the construction of a wildlife viewing platform
adjacent to the port-owned Redmon Pond on the South Jetty. This platform will allow wildlife
enthusiasts to view the pond and migratory birds that frequent there. The platform will also
offer views of a favorite gathering spot for Pelicans on the Coquille River and a clear and
fabulous view of the Bandon Lighthouse and Coquille River bar. Gorse abatement is on-going on
this property and in partnership with BLM, native grasses and native plants are being
introduced as part of the abatement program.
The Port of Coquille, positioned on the Coquille River, is planning on continuing to provide
recreational activities, such as fishing and boating.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-1
7. TRANSPORTATION FINANCING
Although a financing plan is not required by the TPR (OAR 660-12-040), developing an
understanding of how projected funding needs compare with available revenues is important.
This chapter summarizes existing Coos County transportation budgets followed by an analysis
of needs versus revenues. Potential funding sources available from the federal, state and local
levels of government are then discussed along with the appropriateness of the available
sources to fund projects. This is followed by a brief funding strategy that summarizes potential
future funding sources for County TSP projects.
Existing Budgets
Coos County currently owns and maintains approximately 350 miles of paved roads, 200 miles
of unpaved (gravel) roads, and 124 bridges located throughout the County. The County Road
Department has responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and new construction of the
County’s road and bridge system. The services provided by the Road Department are funded by
an allocation of federal, state, and local revenue sources that are managed through annual
fiscal year budgets approved by the Board of Commissioners.
Table 7-1 shows the County road revenues for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. Historically, the
major sources of road and bridge revenues have been from the federal forest timber receipts,
the allocation of state fuel taxes, and through a variety of local sources. The federal forest
timber receipts funding will end in 2012, which will require Coos County to rely more on
available state and local revenue sources.
Table 7-1. Coos County Road Revenue Sources, Fiscal Years 2008-2011
Source
Revenue
Fiscal Year
2008-2009
Revenue
Fiscal Year
2009-2010
Budget
Fiscal Year
2010-2011 Notes
Federal $462,661 $374,987 $256,840
Federal Forest Timber Receipts $462,661 $374,987 $256,840 Ends in 2012
State 3,115,869 $2,800,000 $3,000,000
SB 994 $400,000 N/A N/A One-time payment
Fuel Taxes $2,715,869 $2,800,000 $3,000,000
Local 1,981,482 1,405,000 1,744,439
Coos Bay Wagon Road $655,990 $563,000 $364,439 Ends in 2012
Permits $33,179
$842,000
$40,000
Work/County Departments $1,011,348 $250,000
Work Outside Agency $118,861 $900,000
Miscellaneous $86,147 $150,000
Interest $75,957 $40,000
Total Revenues $5,560,012 $4,579,987 $5,001,279
Source: Coos County, 2010
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-2
In addition to the traditional revenue sources, the County has received several grants from
various agencies in recent years for capital projects as listed below:
• Bandon Marsh funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) for $4.4 million.
• Repairs to South Powers Highway funded by FHWA for $4.8 million.
• Culvert replacements funded by Coos Watershed for a $1.8 million contribution.
• Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, or Stimulus Package)
of $876,000, with $508,000 in County match funded West Central Boulevard sidewalk
and paving and Anson Rodgers bridge rehabilitation.
• Major storm repairs through the Surface Transportation Program for approximately
$700,000.
Overall Project Needs
The Coos County TSP identifies a variety of roadway, bridge, natural hazard, safety, bicycle, and
pedestrian projects for the next 20 years. Table 7-2 summarizes the short-term, mid-term, and
long-term needs of the County.
Table 7-2. County TSP Project Cost Summary
Project Locations/Primary Responsibility
Number of
Projects
Estimated
Cost(2010 $)*
Short-Term / High Priority (0-5 Years)
Projects on State Highways 27 $17,977,500
Projects on County Roads 21 $15,915,000
Short-Term/High Priority Subtotal 48 $33,892,500
Mid-Term / Medium Priority (5-10 Years)
Projects on State Highways 15 $5,335,000
Projects on County Roads 26 $33,348,000
Mid-Term/Medium Priority Subtotal 41 $38,683,000
Long-Term / Low Priority (10-20 Years)
Projects on State Highways 26 $24,212,500
Projects on County Roads 18 $18,945,000
Long-Term/Low Priority Subtotal 44 $43,157,500
All Projects
Projects on State Highways 68 $47,525,000
Projects on County Roads 65 $68,208,000
TOTAL 133 $115,733,000
*Estimated costs exclude bridge projects and a few other projects with undetermined costs.
There are 68 projects identified on state highways; however, inclusion of an improvement in
the TSP does not represent a commitment by ODOT to fund, allow, or construct the project.
Projects on the State Highway System that are contained in the TSP are not considered
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-3
"planned" projects until they are programmed into the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). As such, projects proposed in the TSP that are located on a State Highway
cannot be considered mitigated for future development or land use actions until they are
programmed into an adopted STIP or ODOT provides a letter indicating that the project is
"reasonably likely." Highway projects that are programmed to be constructed may have to be
altered or cancelled at a later time to meet changing budgets or unanticipated conditions such
as environmental constraints.
The TSP identifies 65 projects on county roads with a total funding need of over $68 million. A
comparison of funding needs and potential revenue follows.
Evaluation of County Funding Needs and Potential Revenue
The TSP has identified the need for Coos County to fund over $68 million in transportation
improvements during the next 20 years (Table 7-3). This estimate excludes the bridge projects
since these projects have been fund through the STIP in the past and cost estimates for bridge
replacement and improvements are not available.
Table 7-3. County TSP Project Cost Summary
Category/Priority Estimated Cost(2010 $)
Pavement Improvements – Summary
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years) $3,590,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years) $21,630,000
Low Priority / Long Term (10-20 Years) $18,540,000
Pavement Improvements Subtotal $43,760,000
Natural Hazards Mitigation – Summary
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years) $10,450,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years) $1,068,000
Low Priority / Long Term (10-20 Years) $405,000
Natural Hazards Mitigation Subtotal $11,923,000
Roadway Safety Improvements – Summary
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years) $975,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years) NA
Low Priority / Long Term (10-20 Years) NA
Roadway Safety Improvements Subtotal $975,000
Bicycle And Pedestrian Improvements – Summary
High Priority / Short Term (0-5 Years) $900,000
Medium Priority / Mid Term (5-10 Years) $10,650,000
Low Priority / Long Term (10-20 Years) NA
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Subtotal $11,550,000
TOTAL $68,208,000
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-4
Short-Term, High Priority Projects
The TSP identifies those projects which are highest priority for the County with a goal of
completing those improvements (pavement, natural hazards mitigation, safety, bicycle, and
pedestrian) within five years. A comparison of the forecast revenue stream and forecast
expenses is summarized in Table 7-4.
Table 7-4. County Revenues and Expenses, Fiscal Years 2011-2015:
High Priority Projects
Revenue & Expenses Amount
Net Revenue
State Revenue1 $22,140,000
County Revenue2 $6,900,000
Total Net Revenue $29,040,000
Expenses
Total 0-5 Years High-Priority Projects3 $15,915,000
Pavement Improvements High Priority $3,590,000
Natural Hazards Mitigation High Priority $10,450,000
Roadway Safety Improvements High Priority $975,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements High Priority $900,000
Other Road Department Expenses4 $15,000,000
Total Expenses $30,915,000
Revenue-Expenses Remainder ($1,875,000)
Notes:
1. Calculated based on ODOT forecast of net county apportionment revenues for fiscal years (July 1
through June 30) 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 and November 2010 Coos County vehicle
registrations.
2. The County Road Department estimated revenue from permits, courthouse vehicles, work for other
County departments, work outside the agency, miscellaneous, and interest in 2010-2011 the
Department operating budget.
3. In 2010 dollars.
4. The County Road Department estimated expenses from fuel, utilities, supplies, personal services,
training, contingency funds, and other expenses.
Sources: ODOT, 2010; Coos County, 2010
The state revenue estimate is based on the ODOT Summary of Transportation Economic and
Revenue Forecasts of June 2010 (released September 2010), prepared by the Economics and
Financial Analysis Unit of ODOT Financial Services, which provides the net county
apportionment forecast for ODOT fiscal years through 2015. State apportionment to counties is
based on a percentage of vehicle registrations. Assuming that vehicle registrations in Coos
County remain at approximately 1.88 percent of the state total (77,459 registrations as of
November 2010 of the state total of 4,120,919 registrations), Table 7-4 presents ODOT
forecasts of net revenues for Coos County for the next five years. The net revenues include
weight mile tax, motor fuels tax, driver and vehicle fees, Oregon Transportation Investment Act
(OTIA), House Bill (HB) 2041 and 2388, and Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA ) funds. The ODOT
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-5
The County Road Department estimates 2010-2011 revenue of $1,380,000 from permits,
courthouse vehicles, work for other County departments, work outside the agency,
miscellaneous, and interest earned. This revenue stream was assumed to remain the same over
the next five years.
Expenses are comprised of the high priority (0 to 5 year) projects on the County Project List and
other Road Department expenses, which are estimated at approximately $3 million annually.
This comparison shows a shortfall of less than $2 million, but does not account for local
matching funds needed for state and federal projects.
To fully fund the high priority projects, the County will need to seek additional funding sources.
In the past, Coos County has funded Safety projects through the STP, STIP, and SHSP. Bridge
projects were also primarily STIP-funded. Coos County used HEP funds for Natural Hazard
projects. Funding from these sources may be available to augment County resources in the
short term. In addition, ODOT’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant Program could be a short-term
funding source.
Long-Term, Medium and Low Priority Projects
To evaluate how medium- and long-term revenue streams may compare with estimated project
costs, two different levels of annual revenue14 were assumed. Table 7-5 shows projected
shortfalls for two scenarios, one assuming a $1,000,000 per year revenue stream and the other
assuming $2,000,000 per year revenue stream.
Table 7-5. Medium- and Long-Term Estimated County Revenues and Expenses
Estimated
Cost
(2010 $)
Assumed Annual Revenue Available for Improvement Projects
$1,000,000 $2,000,000
Revenue
Stream
Revenue
Shortfall
Revenue
Stream
Revenue
Shortfall
TSP Projects
Medium Priority (5-10 Years) $33,348,000 $5,000,000 ($28,348,000) $10,000,000 ($23,348,000)
Low Priority (10-20 Years) $18,945,000 $10,000,000 ($8,945,000) $20,000,000 $1,055,000
Total $52,293,000 $15,000,000 ($37,293,000) $30,000,000 ($22,293,000)
Note: The revenue available for improvement projects excludes County Road Department such as fuel, utilities, supplies, personal services,
training, contingency funds, and other expenses.
At either of these levels of revenue, Coos County would experience significant shortfalls in
funding transportation system improvements during the 20-year TSP cycle. These calculations
show that it will be difficult for Coos County to rely on traditional sources to fund basic
maintenance activities and any new improvements in the future.
14
ODOT does not forecast weight mile tax, motor fuels tax, driver and vehicle fees, and other funds more than five years.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-6
Potential Funding Sources
Secondary in importance to roadway and bridge maintenance is the construction and
reconstruction of transportation facilities within the County. The paving of existing gravel roads
continue to be a priority as funding is available. The majority of the projects identified in the
TSP are associated with paving existing roads to improve safety or to address ground
movement slides along County roads. The TSP identifies the need for Coos County to continue
to pave gravel roads during the next 20 years.
Three national trends are affecting Coos County traditional sources of revenues:
1. The shift of transportation finance responsibilities from federal government to state
government and state government to local government, particularly the long-term
decline of federal grant assistance for roadway projects. State and local government will
bear an increasing share for financing future transportation needs
2. Increasing unreliability of gas tax revenue—as fuel efficiency increases and use of
alternative fuel vehicles increases, gas tax revenues will decrease.
3. Elimination of the federal forest timber receipts in 2012.
For Coos County, maintenance of the existing system is the main priority. Maintenance
activities include road grading, ditching, culvert replacement and cleaning, spraying for
vegetation control, paving and patching (cold mix), shoulder rocking, brushing and mowing,
striping, signage, and bridge maintenance. When possible, Coos County does fund some new
improvement projects that primarily receive funding from federal and state sources. Given
existing and projected future funding limitations, Coos County will have limited ability to share
funding responsibilities for non-maintenance activities. The current funding sources, used by
Coos County, are detailed below.
Federal Sources
Federal funding sources account for approximately 21 percent of transportation project funding
within the state of Oregon. The most significant federal sources have been the Federal Highway
Trust Fund and federal forest revenues. However, the allocation of federal timber receipt
revenue is scheduled to end in 2012.
Federal Highway Trust Fund
Revenues from the fund originate from motor vehicle fuel taxes, sales taxes for heavy trucks
and trailers, tire taxes, and annual heavy truck use taxes. Allocated to individual states on an
annual basis, these revenues are used by the state, counties, and cities and must be matched
with state and local funds.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
The STP is a federal multi-modal block-grant-type program that provides funds for a broad
range of transportation uses. Projects that qualify can include highway and transit capital
projects, carpool projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, planning, and research and
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-7
development. Allocated to the State, the STP funds are then sub-allocated to MPOs, cities
(outside of an MPO), and counties on a formula basis by the Oregon Transportation
Commission.
STP Transportation Enhancements Program – The State of Oregon is required to set aside 10
percent of the yearly STP revenues received and dedicate those funds for Transportation
Enhancement Activities. Comprised a broad range of projects, enhancement funds are allocated
to local jurisdictions throughout the state on a competitive basis and require a 20-percent non-
federal match (Oregon’s required match is 10.27 percent because of the state’s large share of
publicly owned land). Projects eligible for transportation enhancement funding include the
following:
• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• Preservation of abandoned railway corridors
• Landscaping and other scenic beautification
• Control and removal of outdoor advertising
• Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites
• Scenic or historic highway programs; historic preservation
• Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities
• Archaeological planning and research
• Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff
In fiscal year 2008-2009, the County made improvements to Boat Basin Drive funded by ODOT
Transportation Enhancement for $1.1 million with $237,840 County matching funds.
STP Safety Funds – An additional 10 percent of base STP funding allocated to the states must be
dedicated for safety programs (hazard elimination, rail-highway crossings, etc.). The match rate
for safety projects is 80 percent federal, 20 percent state or local (Oregon’s required match is
10.27 percent because of the state’s large share of publicly owned land).
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR)
The HBRR funds replacement or maintenance of existing bridges. Placement and construction
of new bridges are not eligible for funding under this program. Program funds are currently
distributed through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) under “Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation”. These funds will eventually be distributed according to the
Unified Bridge Program, a rating system that indicates the condition and traffic level on each
bridge in the State. In fiscal year 2008-2009, the County received $6,905,000 through this
program for Beaver Creek Bridge and Robison Bridge with $1,075,000 in County matching
funds.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-8
Hazard Elimination Program (HEP)
The HEP targets funding for safety improvement projects on public roads and must be
sponsored by a County or City. In order to be eligible for federal aid, the projects would need to
be part of either the financial element of a TSP or included on the annual listing of rural projects
by ODOT. However, HEP-funded projects would not have to be part of the approved STIP to
receive STIP funding.
State of Oregon Sources
In Oregon, the three major sources of revenue for roadway projects and maintenance include
motor vehicle fuel taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, and truck weight-mile taxes15. The net
revenues from these three sources are deposited into the State Highway fund. The revenues
are constitutionally dedicated for construction, improvement, maintenance, operation and use
of public highways, roads, streets, and roadside rest areas. 24.38 percent of these revenues are
allocated to counties, based on vehicle registration.
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The primary programming document that identifies transportation priorities for federal and
state funding in Oregon, the STIP provides a schedule and identifies funding for projects
throughout the state. Transportation projects are only eligible for STIP funding that is identified
in adopted and acknowledged TSPs. Projects included in the STIP are regionally significant, have
been given a high priority through planning efforts, and are planned for construction during a 4-
year period. In fiscal year 2008-2009, the County received $1,326,418 in STP funds for repairing
the Sitkum Lane slide MP 33.8 road failure, 8th Street lakeside sidewalks and pedestrian
improvements, repairing Transpacific Lane failures, and repairing the North Lake Lane road
failure at MP 5.
State Highway Fund
The major source of funding for transportation capital projects statewide, State Highway Fund
revenues are appropriated by the OTC on an annual basis based on population for cities and
registered vehicles for counties. Revenues in support of the State Highway Fund are generated
from a combination of state fuel taxes, vehicle licensing and registration fees, and weight-mile
tax assessed on trucks. State Highway Trust Fund revenues may be used only for construction
and maintenance of state and local highways, bridges, and roadside rest areas, but a portion of
the fund must be spent on walkways and bikeways. Net revenues have historically been
proportioned to the three levels of government as follows:
• Cities – 15.57 percent
• Counties – 24.38 percent (by number of vehicles registered)
• State – 60.05 percent (by population)
15
In Oregon, commercial vehicles over 26,000 pounds pay a user fee based on the number of miles traveled on public roads
within Oregon. The per-mile rate is based on the declared weight of the vehicle, and for vehicles weighing over 80,000
pounds, the number of axles. Vehicles paying the weight-mile tax are exempt from the use-fuel (diesel) tax.).
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-9
Revenues from increased tax rates would be shared on a 20-30-50 percent basis, respectively
for cities, counties, and state. Improved fuel efficiency may reduce gas tax revenues.
ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant Program is a competitive grant program that provides
approximately $5 million dollars every two years to Oregon cities, counties and ODOT regional
and district offices for design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Proposed
facilities must be within public rights-of-way. Grants are awarded by the Oregon Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee. At least one percent of the State Highway Fund must be
expended for development of footpaths and bikeways. Projects must have a minimum 10
percent local match.
Connect Oregon Program
The first major funding initiative targeted at multimodal or non-highway transportation efforts
in Oregon, the Connect Oregon program is a $100 million lottery-based initiative to invest in air,
rail, marine, and transit infrastructure. The program aims to integrate the various modal
components of the transportation system, thereby improving flow of commerce and reduce
delays. The OTC selects the projects on the basis of grant applications.
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
The federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) requires that each state establish and implement a Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP), which is a program of highway safety projects that is consistent with the requirements
of 23 U.S.C. 135(g) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The SHSP is
implemented across all jurisdictions; therefore, any funds directed toward implementing the
plan may be applicable to safety projects outlined in the Coos County TSP.
Special Public Works Fund (SPWF)
The State of Oregon allocates a portion of state lottery revenues for economic development.
The Oregon Economic Development Department provides grants and loans through the SPWF
program to construct, improve and repair infrastructure in commercial/industrial areas to
support local economic development and create new jobs. The SPWF provides a maximum
grant of $500,000 for projects that will help create or retain a minimum of 50 jobs.
Traffic Control Projects
The State maintains a policy of sharing installation, maintenance, and operational costs for
traffic signals and luminar units at intersections between State highways and city streets (or
county roads). Intersections involving a State highway and a city street or county road that are
included on the statewide priority list are eligible to participate in the cost sharing policy. ODOT
establishes a statewide priority list for traffic signal installations on the State Highway System.
The priority system is based on warrants outlined in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-10
Devices. Local agencies are responsible for coordinating the statewide signal priority list with
local road requirements.
State Highway Fund Bicycle/Pedestrian Program
ORS 366.514 requires at least 1percent of the Highway Fund received by ODOT, counties, and
cities be expended for the development of footpaths and bikeways. ODOT administers its
bicycle/pedestrian funds, handles bikeway planning, design, engineering, and construction, and
provides technical assistance and advice to local governments concerning bikeways.
Immediate Opportunity Fund (IOF)
The IOF is intended to support economic development in Oregon by funding road projects that
assures job development opportunities by influencing the location or retention of a firm or
economic development. The fund may be used only when other sources of funding are
unavailable or insufficient, and is restricted to job retention and committed job creation
opportunities. To be eligible, a project must require an immediate commitment of road
construction funds to address an actual transportation problem. The applicant must show that
the location decision of a firm or development depends on those transportation improvements,
and the jobs created by the development must be “primary” jobs such as manufacturing,
distribution, or service jobs.
County Sources
Oregon counties and cities have the legal authority to devise their own non-property tax and
other local revenue structures without specific state enabling legislation. Although these
sources are typically implemented at the city level, some are also applicable at a regional or
multi-jurisdictional level as well. The institution of some of these revenue sources could make
available some of the transportation fund revenue that currently goes towards maintenance
and preservation. Existing and potential local funding sources are listed and described below.
The TAC (comprised of Coos County and ODOT staff members) considered various potential
funding sources at its October 6, 2010 meeting. They determined that the following methods
and sources are viable for consideration by Coos County.
Local Improvement Districts (LID)
Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are created by property owners within a specific area to
raise revenues for constructing street improvements within the same district. LIDs may be used
to assess property owners for improvements that benefit properties. Property owners typically
enter into LIDs because they see economic advantage to the improvements. Fees are paid with
property tax bills. LIDs can be implemented to fund new connector roads that will benefit one
or more groups of property owners at a higher rate than the county as a whole. LIDs are
particularly beneficial to improve local roadways to County standards. LIDs generally are
geographically limited but can be matched with other funds where a project has a system-wide
benefit. The formation of LID districts is governed by state law and local jurisdictional
development codes. LID revenues can only be used to fund new capital improvement projects
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-11
and not for maintenance expenses. LID revenues could be combined with other revenue
sources. In Coos County, LIDs have been used in the past, for example, to improve Wallace
Road. The County has planned four LIDs in the 2010-2011 capital improvements program: Stage
Road, McFarland Road, North Way, Timber Lane, totaling $904,300. However, there are few
areas where they can be used in the future.
Revenue and General Obligation Bonds
Revenue bonds are issued/sold by government agencies and repaid by specific user fees or
service charges. The bonds are typically secured by stable revenue stream, such as a local gas
tax, street utility fee, or toll.
General Obligation Bonds pay for construction of large capital improvements. This method is
typically used to fund road improvements that will benefit a large portion of the county.
General Obligation Bonds add the cost of the improvement to property taxes over a period of
time. Oregon State law requires a double majority voter approval for instituting General
Obligation Bonds. Revenue is collected in property tax billings.
System Development Charges/Traffic Impact Fees
A System Development Charge (SDC) is a one-time fee assessed on new development at the
time of development approval (development or building permit). An SDC is intended to finance
necessary capital improvements needed as a result of that development. The purpose of the
charge is to recoup proportionate share of jurisdiction’s capital costs for infrastructure. SDCs
can be used for capital costs off-site, throughout the jurisdiction. The fee, which can vary for
different land uses, is calculated based on the estimated number of vehicle trips generated by
the proposed development. Development charges are calculated to include the costs of impacts
on adjacent areas or services. SDCs ensures that existing residents and businesses are not
subsidizing new development.
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.208-314 authorizes local governments to establish SDCs. The
charges must be used to fund a capacity increase on (not maintenance of) of the transportation
system. SDCs can be used to fund future projects or to reimburse the cost of funding previously
constructed projects. ORS 223.309 requires that the local government must have a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) before establishing an SDC system. SDCs are pooled and expended
on projects identified in the CIP. ORS 223.311 requires that the local government designates
special accounts for SDC funds and perform annual accounting.
County Public Works Fund
The fund accounts for the general operations of the County Road Department. Primary revenue
sources in the past have included federal forest fees, motor vehicle fees, and interest
allocation. Expenditures are for the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-12
County Vehicle Registration Fee
With voter approval, Oregon counties may impose a vehicle registration fee that is no more
than the state’s vehicle registration fee (currently $54 for two years). For a County registration
fee, ODOT would collect revenue from the fees and pay the revenue back to the counties that
establish registration fees. The Oregon Constitution requires all revenues to be used for the
construction and maintenance of highways, roads, and streets.
To incentivize the purchase of fuel-efficient and light-weight vehicles by county residents that
would lessen greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle registration fees could be made proportional to
vehicle characteristics such as engine displacement (e.g., number of cylinders), fuel efficiency,
gross vehicle weight, or vehicle type. Adoption of such a scheme is known as “feebates”.
According to the ODOT Department of Motor Vehicles, as of November 2010, there were
77,459 registered vehicles in Coos County (not including exempt government vehicles, but
including all others16). Each dollar of a County registration fee would therefore generate about
$77,000, minus the administrative collection cost by ODOT. A $10 annual registration fee could
generate a gross of approximately $770,000. Coos County would need to enact an ordinance to
collect, enforce, and administer the vehicle registration fee.
Traffic Impact Fees
This method assesses one-time fees to finance necessary off-site road improvements
associated with new development. The fee, which can vary for different land uses, is calculated
based on the estimated number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed development.
Revenues are generated in this manner and must be used for capital improvements and not
maintenance activities. If the jurisdiction has SDCs, it must have a mechanism to allow credit for
SDCs paid.
Gas Tax
Gas tax revenues can be used to fund either operating or capital costs, but the Oregon
Constitution restricts gas tax revenue to road or bridge projects (not transit). A local gas tax
would be assessed at the pump. Gas taxes generally measure demand for use of transportation
facilities, so the equity is fairly high. However, fuel revenues are expected to level off in the
short-term and then drop permanently, as the purchasing power of fuel revenues decreases
with inflation and more fuel-efficient vehicles are purchased. Coos County would need to enact
an ordinance to collect, enforce, and administer the vehicle fuel taxes.
Hotel/Lodging or Rental Car Tax
Many Oregon jurisdictions impose a local hotel tax (also known as a transient room tax).
Presently, there are at least four jurisdictions in Oregon (Lake Oswego, Lincoln City, Umatilla
16
Passenger, bus, truck, farm truck, heavy trailer, light trailer, for-rent trailer, motorcycle, travel trailer, camper, motor home,
MCTD, and snow mobile
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-13
County, and Union County) that specifically dedicate revenue from a hotel/lodging tax to
transportation projects. A rental car tax is similar to the hotel/lodging tax.
The Oregon Employment Department (OED) reports industry information by County. For the
accommodation category17 in Coos County, the OED reports 37 accommodation business
establishments in 2009 (the most recent data). It does not list establishments within
incorporated cities separately from those in unincorporated areas. The data source is quarterly
unemployment tax records. The OED notes that “business establishments” does not equal the
number of businesses because one business may have a number of establishments or multiple
establishments in one location. The OED Employer Database lists 75 businesses in the
accommodation category (33 hotels and motels, 25 RV parks, 9 bed and breakfast inns, 5
recreation and vacation camps, and 2 other), most of which are on the coast. The OED
Employer Database provides annual sales data broken down into five categories: less than
$500,000, $500,000 to $1,000,000, $1,000,000 to $2,500,000, $2,500,000 to $5,000,000 (only
the Osprey Point RV Resort) and $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 (only the Red Lion). With this
limited sales data, it is not possible to estimate how much revenue the implementation of an
accommodation tax would generate. Coos County would need to enact an ordinance to collect,
enforce, and administer the lodging fee.
Property Tax
Local property tax revenues could be used to fund transportation projects and maintenance.
Expiring and Unlikely Funding Sources
None of the funding programs or sources identified in this section are currently applicable for
consideration by Coos County because either the funding programs are ending. The County
currently cannot meet the program eligibility requirements, or the mechanisms currently are
not viable.
Federal Funding Sources
The following federal sources are either expiring or none of the projects on the County TSP
Project List are eligible. Expiring sources are listed because they were a past source of County
funding. Ineligible sources are listed because other County0identified needs not on the county
TSP Project List may be eligible.
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act/Timber Receipts
For a century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service shared 25 percent of its timber
receipts with counties containing large areas of federal land. These counties have a significantly
reduced tax base, but are required to provide services throughout the county. Counties are
17
Industries in the Accommodation subsector (NAICS 721) provide lodging or short-term accommodations for travelers,
vacationers, and others. The subsector is organized into three industry groups: (1) traveler accommodation, (2) recreational
accommodation, and (3) rooming and boarding houses.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-14
required to dedicate 75 percent of their share to roads and 25 percent to schools. The Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS Act), Public Law 106-393,
was enacted to provide five years of transitional assistance to rural counties affected by the
decline in revenue from timber harvests on federal lands. The last payment authorized under
P.L. 106-393 was for FY 2006. On October 3, 2008, the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000 was reauthorized as part of Public Law 110-343. There will be
no additional revenue after 2012.
Oregon Senate Bill 994
The 2007 Legislature passed SB 994, Sections 15 to 17, to provide short-term budgetary relief to
Oregon counties at a percentage based upon anticipated loss of federal Secure Rural Schools
funding to be used for improvement of existing county roads. This was a one-time
appropriation.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
The various programs initiated by FTA include funds for major capital investments (New Starts
and Small Starts FTA Section 5309), fixed guideway modernization (FTA Section 5309), bus and
bus facilities (FTA Section 5309, 5318), elderly and disabled persons (FTA Section 5310), rural
transit assistance (FTA Section 5311(b)(3)), and formula grants for other than urbanized areas
(FTA Section 5311). There are no transit projects on the County TSP Project List. Funding may be
available through these programs for the projects in the Coos County Coordinated
Transportation Plan that have no identified cost or schedule.
National Scenic Byway Program
The only designated National Scenic Byway in Coos County is U.S. 101. Although improvement
projects identified in the byway’s Corridor Management Plan would qualify for federal funding,
the TSP does not identify any projects on U.S. 101.
Safe Routes to School
ODOT is accepting applications for approximately $2.2 million in federal funds for projects that
improve safety around Oregon schools. Eligible projects must be located within a two-mile
radius of a qualified K-8 school facility. The only school access project identified in the TSP is for
a high school, not a K-8.
Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management
Part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management provides support and guidance to state and territory coastal programs
and estuarine research reserves. There is one program that may provide funding for
transportation projects. The Coastal Resource Improvement Program under Section 360Aof the
Coastal Zone Management Act allows state coastal zone management programs to choose to
spend up to half of their Section 306 funds on small-scale construction or land acquisition
projects that enhance public access to the coast, facilitate redevelopment of urban waterfronts,
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-15
or preserve and restore coastal resources. This funding requires a one-to-one match. Half of the
funds can be used for paths and walkways to access public beaches. The TSP does not identify
any coastal access projects.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
With a focus on reducing the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism, projects available for funding
through the Department of Homeland Security would involve port security/operations and
lifeline routes. It is unlikely that roadways in Coos County jurisdiction would qualify.
Alliance for Community Traffic Safety Oregon Building Safer Communities Mini-Grant Program
The Building Safer Communities Mini-Grant program provides funding to promote traffic safety
in Oregon. This is a reimbursement-based grant-- funds would initially come from the County
and would be reimbursed based on the claims and source documents submitted with reports.
Eligible activities include conduct safety audits using surveys, community meetings and data to
identify local traffic safety problems and develop community-specific projects. The grant size is
$5,000. 2010-2011 grants were awarded in November 2010. The TSP does not identify any
projects that include safety audits.
Unlikely Local Funding Mechanisms
The TAC (comprised of Coos County and ODOT staff members) considered various potential
funding sources at its October 6, 2010 meeting. They determined that the following methods
and sources were not worth considering or not applicable. Reasons for rejection include that
the method would generate little revenue, that the revenue would be limited to use on one
specific facility or a small geographic area, and that the method is not currently used in Oregon
and so is not likely to be implemented in Coos County. The methods are listed here in order to
document other funding mechanisms that may be more applicable for consideration in future
TSP updates.
General Fund
The general fund for Coos County is not applied toward transportation capital improvement
projects or maintenance. Use of general fund for transportation maintenance and projects is
not likely to be viable in the future given current economic conditions.
Parking Fees
Parking fees (and parking fines) at boat launches, county parking lots, or within unincorporated
communities would generate revenue for transportation-related improvements. The low
number of parking spaces in Coos County, especially in public lots, would generate little
revenue. Generated revenue would also be used to offset the costs of installation, operation,
and maintenance of public parking lots. Use of parking fees to fund transportation maintenance
and improvements is better suited for incorporated cities that have large inventory of parking
spaces and lots.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-16
Parking Tax
A parking tax imposes a tax on the number of parking spaces at a business. This is more
appropriate for urban areas. The low number of parking spaces in Coos County would generate
little revenue. Oregon state law does not preclude local governments from developing a
regional parking tax based on the number of parking spaces at a business. However, it has not
been determined if a parking tax collected through business licenses fees could legally be used
for transportation projects. There could be a high administrative cost since a database of the
parking spaces for subject properties and an accounting system would need to be developed.
Again, use of parking taxes to fund transportation maintenance and improvements is more
applicable to incorporated cities that have large inventories of parking spaces and lots.
Payroll tax
Transit and transportation districts (for example, Tri-Met in Portland and Lane County) can levy
income taxes up to 1 percent of payroll and 0.6 percent of self-employment to fund public
transit. Unless Coos County wants to consider the establishment of a transit district, use of
payroll taxes is not a viable funding option.
Road/Transportation Utility Fee Program
A road/transportation utility fee program provides funds for roadway infrastructure within a
specific area of benefit or geographic area. A fee is assessed to all businesses and households in
the area for use of streets based on generic trip generation rates for land use categories.
Therefore it does not require monitoring of actual travel. Fees typically are collected monthly
with other utility bills and are used to fund maintenance and preservation of existing facilities
within that area. Street utility fees are currently collected in the cities of Ashland and Medford,
for example. This type of program is more effective in an urban area with a compact network of
roadways that have on-going maintenance needs. Given the rural nature of Coos County, a
road/transportation utility fee program is not viable for consideration by Coos County.
Sales or Income Tax
A sales tax would tax goods sold within Coos County. An income tax would tax income earned
within Coos County. No jurisdiction in Oregon currently imposes either. Typically a municipality
establishes a transportation authority to administer the funds if the sales tax is to be dedicated
for transportation improvements. A sales or income tax is not a viable funding source given that
no other Oregon municipality has been successful in implementing a local transportation sales
or income tax.
Tolling
Tolling is used in many states to recover road and especially bridge construction, operation, and
maintenance costs. There are no toll roadways in Oregon. Tolls can be removed when
construction has been paid in full or could remain in place for the continued operation and
maintenance of the roadway or bridge. Toll revenue must be used for the tolled facility only.
Tolling is not a viable funding option for Coos County.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-17
Urban Renewal Districts and Tax Increment Financing
Urban renewal districts are formed in selected areas, creating a tax-increment financing
mechanism to generate urban renewal funds. TIF works by ‘freezing’ property values at the
beginning of an urban renewal plan, and assessing a fee only on the incremental growth in
property value observed since the beginning of the urban renewal district plan. The revenues
generated within an urban renewal district are used to secure bonds to finance projects and
programs within the district. Use of the funds is not limited to transportation projects. Funds
generated within each district must be spent within that urban renewal district.
Before an urban renewal district can be established, the needs and required funding must be
identified. This would typically take the form of an urban renewal plan. The urban renewal plan
would specify the boundaries for the urban renewal district, the proposed improvements to be
made, the costs associated with these improvements, and the amount and source of funding. A
new urban renewal area would require approval by the jurisdiction’s designated urban renewal
agency, and cannot overlap with existing urban renewal plans. Urban renewal districts typically
are set up by incorporated cities or for urbanizing areas within city urban growth boundaries
(UGBs). Areas outside UGBs would need to be brought into the UGB before an Urban Renewal
Plan went into effect.
The establishment of urban renewal districts in Coos County, outside incorporated cities, is not
likely a viable funding source given the land use issues associated with urbanizing area being
part of city UGBs.
Funding Strategy
Coos County has the jurisdictional responsibility to maintain and improve, when possible, a
large inventory of roads and bridges covering a broad geographic area. Based on current
economic conditions and projections, the amount and availability of funding for transportation
system maintenance and future improvements is expected to continue to decrease. Coos
County has continued to provide transportation maintenance services to existing roadways and
bridges, but has had limited funding available for new improvement projects. As traditional
funding sources continue to decrease at the federal and state levels, the County will consider a
range of options to continue to fund ongoing maintenance activities, and to also fund a portion
of the priority improvements identified in the TSP.
Coos County will continue to allocate County funding, when possible, to fund transportation
maintenance and the highest priority improvement projects. The County will also continue to
utilize available state and federal transportation funding programs, including the following
sources:
• Federal
o Surface Transportation Program (STP)
o Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR)
o Hazard Elimination Program (HEP)
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Transportation Financing 7-18
• State
o State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
o ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
o Connect Oregon Program
o Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
o Special Public Works Fund (SPWF)
o State Highway Fund Bicycle/Pedestrian Program
o Immediate Opportunity Fund (IOF)
In addition, Coos County will consider some of the alternative funding mechanisms, particularly
local, outlined in this chapter to bridge the funding shortfall. The Road Department will
consider alternative funding sources for required local matching funds (local match is required
for many types of federal funds). The Road Department may partner with other County
departments and agencies to take advantage of grant writing expertise and other technical
assistance. Some of the local options to consider include:
• Revenue and General Obligation Bonds
• System Development Charges/Traffic Impact Fees
• County Vehicle Registration Fee
• Gas Tax
• Hotel/Lodging/ Rental Car Tax
• Property tax
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix
Appendix
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-1
Review of Existing Plans and Policies
State, regional, and local transportation and land use plans and regulations were reviewed to
identify elements that are applicable to the Coos County TSP.
State of Oregon Planning Documents and Regulations
The following state documents were reviewed as they relate to the development of TSPs or
Coos County transportation facilities:
• Transportation Planning Rule - Statewide Planning Goal 12 and OAR 660, Division 12
• OAR 734, Division 51 (Highway Approaches, Access Control, Spacing Standards and
Medians) (Amended 2007)
• Oregon Transportation Plan (2006)
• Oregon Highway Plan (1999, Amended July 2006)
• Highway Design Manual (HDM) (2003, Revised 2008)
• Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995)
• Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan (2004)
• Oregon Aviation Plan (2000)
• Oregon Rail Plan (2001)
• Oregon Public Transportation Plan (1997)
• Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Transportation Planning Rule - Statewide Planning Goal 12 and OAR 660, Division 12
Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) requires cities, counties, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs), and ODOT to provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic
transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through OAR 660, Division 12, the
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR).
The purpose of the TPR is to promote “the development of safe, convenient and economic
transportation systems that are designed to reduce reliance on the automobile so that the air
pollution, traffic and other livability problems faced by urban areas in other parts of the country
might be avoided.” Furthermore, to ensure that planned land uses are supported by and
consistent with planned transportation facilities and improvements, the TPR promotes more
careful coordination of land use and transportation planning. These objectives are primarily
accomplished through TSP development based on inventories of local, regional and state
transportation needs.
The Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted amendments to the TPR in
March 2005 clarifying how the impact of plan amendments and zoning changes on
transportation facilities are assessed. The amendments stipulate that a significant effect occurs
only if a plan amendment or zone change affects the facility by the end of the planning period,
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-2
not if the effect occurs at any point during the planning period. The primary focus of this rule
is on keeping land use and transportation in balance. The current amendments include new
provisions that pay particular attention to proposed plan or land use regulation amendments
within one-half mile of interstate interchanges. The concern is protecting the state’s significant
investments in interchanges and in the interstate system. These new provisions should be
reflected in the Coos County TSP update.
The TPR requires local governments to adopt land use regulations consistent with state and
federal requirements “to protect transportation facilities, corridors and sites for their identified
functions (OAR 660-012-0045(2)).” This policy is achieved through a variety of measures,
including:
• Access control measures, which are consistent with the functional classification of roads
and consistent with limiting development on rural lands to rural uses and densities;
• Standards to protect future operations of roads;
• A process for coordinated review of future land use decisions affecting transportation
facilities, corridors or sites;
• A process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize impacts
and protect transportation facilities, corridors or sites;
• Regulations to provide notice to ODOT of land use applications that require public
hearings, involve land divisions, or affect private access to roads; and
• Regulations ensuring that amendments to land use designations, densities and design
standards are consistent with the functions, capacities, and performance standards of
facilities identified in the TSP. See also OAR 660-012-0060.
OAR 734, Division 51 (Highway Approaches, Access Control, Spacing Standards and Medians) (Amended 2007)
OAR 734-051 (Division 51) directs the permitting, management, and standards of approaches to
state highways to ensure safe and efficient operation of the state highways. Division 51
implements the policies in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), addressing the following:
• How to bring existing and future approaches into compliance with access spacing
standards, and ensure the safe and efficient operation of the highway;
• Requirements regarding mitigation, modification and closure of existing approaches as
part of project development; and
• The development of Access Management Plans and Interchange Area Management
Plans to address Division 51 standards and ensure consistency with the provisions of
OAR 731-015-0065 (Coordination Procedures for Adopting Final Facility Plans).
Oregon Transportation Plan (2006)
The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) is the state’s long-range multi-modal transportation
plan. The OTP is the overarching policy document among a series of plans that together form
the state transportation system plan (TSP). The OTP considers all modes of Oregon’s
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-3
transportation system as a single system and addresses the future needs of Oregon’s airports,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, highways and roadways, pipelines, ports and waterway
facilities, public transportation, and railroads.
The OTP was updated in 2006, with emphasis placed on maintaining the assets already in place,
optimizing the existing system performance, creating sustainable funding, and investing in
strategic capacity enhancements. The current OTP assesses state, regional, and local public and
private transportation facilities through 2030. The OTP establishes goals, policies, strategies,
and initiatives that address the core challenges and opportunities facing Oregon. It also
provides the framework for prioritizing transportation improvements based on varied future
revenue conditions.
Oregon Transportation Plan policy can be obtained at the following website:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/ortransplanupdate.shtml.
Oregon Highway Plan (1999, Amended July 2006)
The 1999 OHP establishes policies and investment strategies for Oregon’s state highway system
over a 20-year period and refines the goals and policies found in the OTP. Policies in the OHP
emphasize the efficient management of the highway system with the goals of increasing safety
and to extending highway capacity, creating partnerships with other agencies and local
governments, and using new techniques to improve road safety and capacity. These policies
also link land use and transportation, set standards for highway performance and access
management, and emphasize the relationship between state highways and local road, bicycle,
pedestrian, transit, rail, and air systems. The policies applicable to planning for interchange
improvements are described below, with impacts to interchange planning shown in italics.
Goal 1. System Definition. The following policies are applicable to the TSP update:
• Policy 1A (State Highway Classification System) calls for the implementation of a
classification system for state highways to identify management objectives.
• Policy 1B (Land Use and Transportation) recognizes the need for coordination between
state and local jurisdictions. The 2006 OHP amendments include a Special
Transportation Area (STA) management plan
• Policy 1C (State Highway Freight System) states the need to balance the movement of
goods and services with other uses.
• Policy 1F (Highway Mobility Standards) sets mobility standards for ensuring a reliable
and acceptable level of mobility on the highway system.
• Policy 1G (Major Improvements) requires maintaining performance and improving
safety by improving efficiency and management before adding capacity where
improvements are needed.
Goal 2. System Management. The following policies are applicable to the project:
• Policy 2B (Off–System Improvements) helps local jurisdictions adopt land use and access
management policies.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-4
Goal 3. Access Management. The following policies are applicable to the project:
• Policy 3A (Classification and Spacing Standards) sets access spacing standards for
driveways and approaches to the state highway system.
• Policy 3B (Medians) addresses the installation on non-traversable medians in state
highways.
• Policy 3D (Deviations), establishes general policies and procedures for deviations from
adopted access management standards and policies.
Highway Design Manual (HDM) (2003, Revised 2008)
The HDM provides design standards for state highways and associated highway elements.
These standards are dependent on the highway’s functional classification and project type (e.g.,
Modernization, Preservation, Safety, Operations, or Maintenance). For future roadway
improvement projects on state facilities and their influence areas planned within Coos County,
the HDM will serve as the guide concerning design processes, different design strategies such as
urban preservation or interstate maintenance, and roadside inventory.
The HDM makes note of the fact that as some projects under ODOT roadway jurisdiction
traverse across local agency boundaries, the roadway designer should be aware of locally-
adopted design standards and guidelines.
Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995)
The intentions of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian plan include: implementing the Actions
recommended by the OTP; guiding ODOT and local governments in developing bikeway and
walkway systems; explaining the laws pertaining to the establishment of bikeways and
walkways; fulfilling the requirements of the TPR; and providing standards for planning,
designing and maintaining bikeways and walkways. The Plan is currently being updated and
was originally scheduled to be completed and adopted by the Oregon Transportation
Commission in 2009. The Draft Final Text of the Plan update is currently available on ODOT’s
website: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml.
The TSP update will address design standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Coos
County in conformance with the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan (2004)
The Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan (OTSAP) contains a set of broad, long-range
goals, policies, and actions for developing an efficient, effective, and safe integrated
transportation system for Oregon in the coming 20-40 years. In 2004, the OTSAP was updated
from the original 1995 version, with intent to continue serving as the safety element for the
OTP. The OTSAP identifies nine key actions for implementation by 2014 to address
transportation safety problems in Oregon. They are shown below in Appendix Table 1.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-5
Appendix Table 1. Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan - The Nine Key Actions
Number OTSAP Action Significant Factor in Fatal Crashes
1 Traffic law enforcement strategy Speed, Occupant Protection, DUII
2 Traffic law enforcement training Speed, Occupant Protection, DUII
4 Judicial training Speed, Occupant Protection, DUII
8 Transportation safety public
information/education program
Speed, Occupant Protection, DUII
10 Expand driver education in Oregon Speed, Occupant Protection, DUII, Young Drivers
16 Improve ODOT ability to allocate resources to the
highest priority safety needs
Single Vehicle Run-off, Speed, DUII, Rural Roads
26 Develop an effective and integrated EMS system Post crash medical care - availability and location
37 Revise driving under the influence of intoxicants
(DUII) statutes
DUII
50 Continue public education efforts aimed at
increasing proper use of safety belts and child
restraint systems
Occupant Protection
Source: ODOT, 2004
Over the past two decades, there has been a dramatic decrease in transportation related
deaths and injuries. This is in great part due to the tougher laws and more effective programs
which serve as the foundation of the OTSAP.
Oregon Aviation Plan (2000)
The Oregon Aviation Plan further refines the goals and policies of the OTP through a set of
policies and investment strategies for Oregon’s public-use aviation system for the next 20
years. Appendix Table 2 lists the public use airports operating in Coos County. In addition to
the four public airports, there are six privately-owned airfields/airstrips and two private
helipads operating in Coos County.
Appendix Table 2. Coos County Airports
Name Category Category Definition
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport 1 Commercial Service Airport1
Bandon State Airport 4 Community General Aviation Airport2
Lakeside State Airport 5 Low Activity General Aviation Airports3
Powers Airport 5 Low Activity General Aviation Airports3
Notes:
1. Category 1 - Commercial Service Airports - Accommodate scheduled major/national or regional/commuter commercial air carrier service.
2. Category 4 - Community General Aviation Airports - Accommodate general aviation users and local business activities.
3. Category 5 - Low Activity General Aviation Airports - Accommodate limited general aviation use in smaller communities and remote
areas of Oregon.
Source: ODOT, 2000
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-6
Oregon Rail Plan (2001)
The Oregon Rail Plan updates the 1994 Oregon Rail Freight Plan and 1992 Oregon Rail
Passenger Policy and Plan. The Plan summarizes state goals and objectives, measure the state’s
performance to-date and refines the projected costs, revenues, and investment needs with
regard to rail transportation. The Plan contains three elements: 1) Rail Policies and the
Planning Process; 2) Freight Element; and 3) Passenger Element.
The Coos Bay Branch Line of the railroad runs from Eugene to Coos Bay. The Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) classifies the Coos Bay Branch as Class 1 and 2 track (maintenance
standards requiring maximum speeds of 10 or 25 mph), with Exception status (exemption from
maintenance standards) between Coos Bay and Coquille. The Coos Bay Branch provides
connections between Eugene and coastal communities including Reedsport, Coos Bay and
Coquille. The Coos Bay Branch is not subject to weight or dimensional standards.
The Port of Coos Bay acquired most of the Coos Bay Branch Line through a Feeder Line
Application action before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. Financing of the acquisition
was supported by a loan package administered by the Oregon Economic Development
Department.
Currently there are no locations within Coos County served by passenger rail service. According
to the Rail Plan, the Eugene-Coos Bay rail corridor served by the Coos Bay Branch line is unlikely
to see passenger rail service in the foreseeable future due to the low population of the coastal
communities, non-competitive rail travel times, and the high cost of track improvements.
Oregon Public Transportation Plan (1997)
The Oregon Public Transportation Plan (OPTP) contains a series of priorities intended to meet
the needs for the proposed statewide public transportation system of 2015. The OPTP links the
OTP, local corridor plans, and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
through its goals, policies, and strategies. More information on public transportation in Coos
County is found under the section below, describing the Coos County Coordinated
Transportation Plan (2007).
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is Oregon's four-year
transportation capital improvement program. It is the document that identifies the funding for
and scheduling of transportation projects and programs. The STIP includes projects on the
federal, state, city, and county transportation systems, multimodal projects (highway,
passenger rail, freight, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian), and projects in the National Parks,
National Forests, and Indian tribal lands.
The STIP is updated every other year, with the cycle beginning in odd numbered years. The
currently approved program is the 2008-2011 STIP. The Draft 2010-2013 STIP was released for
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-7
public review in October 2008 and can be accessed on ODOT’s website:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/STIP/.
Appendix Table 3 lists the 2008-2011 STIP projects impacting the transportation system in Coos
County. Appendix Table 4 lists the 2010-2013 Draft STIP projects for Coos County.
Appendix Table 3. 2008-2011 STIP Projects for Coos County
Key Section Route
Highway
Name Total Cost Description Status
Year
(FFY)
14225 Beaver Cr-Mid Fork Coquille
R-Bundle 405
OR 42 Coos Bay-
Roseburg
$11,704,000 Repair Brs #03173a, 08843, 08876, 03212a,
088, 08935
PSEDOC 2010
15839 Sandy Creek Bridge #00482b OR 42 Coos Bay-
Roseburg
$548,000 Repair Bridge #00482b PSEDOC 2010
15840 Middle Fork Coquille River
Bridge #09185
OR 42 Coos Bay-
Roseburg
$610,000 Deck Overlay, Bridge #09185 PSEDOC 2010
15841 Middle Fork Coquille River
Bridge #09186
OR 42 Coos Bay-
Roseburg
$731,000 Deck Overlay, Bridge #09186 PSEDOC 2010
15846 Isthmus Slough, East
Approach Br #01132f
OR 241 Coos River $7,163,000 Replace East Approach of Bridge #01132f PSEDOC 2010
10844 Isthmus Slough Br/Bunkerhill
Intersection
US 101 Oregon
Coast
$1,722,000 Environmental Assessment for New Bridge,
Advanced R/W Purchase; Begin Design;
Access Mgmt.
FNLPLN 2008
10900 Coquille River (Bullards)
Bridge Painting
US 101 Oregon
Coast
$772,000 Approach Span Rehabilitation on Structure
07020
FNLPLN 2008
15013 McCullough Bridge To Fir
Ave Paving
US 101 Oregon
Coast
$3,794,000 Grind/Inlay Pavement PSEDOC 2011
13933 Powers-Agness Hwy: Burma
Slide Sec (Mp4.4-8.4)
OR 542 Powers $23,892,000 Slide Stabilization, Gr, Dr, Bs, Pv PSEDOC 2010
Source: ODOT, 2008
Appendix Table 4. 2010-2013 Draft STIP Projects for Coos County
Key Section Route
Highway
Name Total Cost Description Status
Year
(FFY)
14225 Beaver Cr-Mid Fork Coquille
R-Bundle 405
OR 42 Coos Bay-
Roseburg
$11,677,000 Repair Brs #03173a, 08843, 08830, 08876,
03212a, 08842, 0559b
PSEDOC 2010
15839 Sandy Creek Bridge
#00482b
OR 42 Coos Bay-
Roseburg
$548,000 Repair Bridge #00482b PSEDOC 2010
15840 Middle Fork Coquille River
Bridge #09185
OR 42 Coos Bay-
Roseburg
$610,000 Deck Overlay, Bridge #09185 PSEDOC 2010
15841 Middle Fork Coquille River
Bridge #09186
OR 42 Coos Bay-
Roseburg
$731,000 Deck Overlay, Bridge #09186 PSEDOC 2010
15013 McCullough Bridge To Fir
Ave Paving
US 101 Oregon
Coast
$3,394,000 Grind/Inlay Pavement PSEDOC 2011
16199 Tugman State Park -
Spinreel Rd. Paving
US 101 Oregon
Coast
$2,459,000 Grind/Inlay and Overlay Pavement 2012
16201 Davis Slough - 2nd Street
(Bandon) Paving
US 101 Oregon
Coast
$7,936,000 Grind/Inlay and Overlay Pavement 2013
16209 North Bend SB Couplet
Safety Improvements
US 101 Oregon
Coast
$1,513,000 Adjust Lanes and Add Overhead Signing;
Reconfigure SB Signal at Virginia
2012
15846 Isthmus Slough, East
Approach Br #01132f
OR 241 Coos River $7,163,000 Replace East Approach ff Bridge #01132f PSEDOC 2010
Source: ODOT, 2008
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-8
Coos County Planning Documents and Regulations
The following Coos County documents were reviewed:
• Coos County Transportation System Plan (1999)
• Coos County Comprehensive Plan (1985)
• Coos County Coordinated Transportation Plan (2007)
• Coos County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2005)
• Coos County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance (1985)
Coos County Transportation System Plan (1999)
The Coos County Transportation System Plan (Coos County TSP) was adopted in 1999 by the
Coos County Board of Commissioners as part of the Coos County Comprehensive Plan. The
Coos County TSP is intended to ensure that the state and county transportation systems
operate together and provide residents with transportation options which are in keeping with
state guidelines and county ideals. As adopted, the Coos County TSP provided a basis for
transportation planning in the near-term but did not meet the required 20-year planning
horizon as defined in the TPR.
The 1999 document is superseded by this 2011 TSP.
Coos County Comprehensive Plan (1985)
The Coos County Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1985. The Comprehensive
Plan is a locally conceived statement of statewide policy guiding all planning activities within
Coos County, including conservation and development. The Comprehensive Plan includes the
following transportation goal:
“Coos County shall strive to provide and encourage a transportation system that promotes
safety and convenience for citizens and travelers and that strengthens the local and regional
economy by facilitating the flow of goods and services.”
The Comprehensive Plan identifies county-wide transportation needs and deficiencies which
include:
• Poor transportation networks connecting Coos County to major population centers;
• Poor mobility for the transportation-disadvantaged;
• The need for an east-west high speed link;
• Excessive street standards emphasizing the automobile;
• Matching limited financial resources with roadway improvement needs;
• Need for alternative modes of transportation (e.g. transit, passenger rail, etc); and
• Inefficient freight movement by rail.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-9
The goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan provide guiding principles for the planning
and management of the Coos County transportation system and are incorporated in the TSP.
Coos County Coordinated Transportation Plan (2007)
The Coos County Coordinated Transportation Plan addresses the existing transportation
services and needs of County residents, focusing on the special needs of low income individuals
and families, older adults, and people with disabilities. This plan focuses on the coordination of
existing resources in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transportation
services. This Coordinated Transportation Plan satisfies federal legislation (the Safe, Affordable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requiring local
communities to develop coordinated public transit/human service plans by 2007 as a condition
for receiving federal transit assistance program funding.
Public transit in the County is provided by Coos County Area Transit Service District (CCAT),
formed in January 2004. CCAT provides service combining deviated fixed route and demand
response (or “dial-a-ride”) bus service in Coquille, Myrtle Point, Bandon, and the Coos
Bay/North Bend area. In addition, a “Loop Bus” service travels a fixed route around Coos
Bay/North Bend. Taxi and limousine service is available primarily in the Coos Bay/North Bend
area in conjunction with clientele traveling between the Southwestern Oregon Regional Airport,
located in North Bend, and the Bandon Dunes Golf Resort. Region 7 of the Oregon Department
of Human Services maintains a volunteer sedan transportation program for non-emergency
medical transportation. The Powers Stage is a van service sponsored by the Powers Housing
Authority which connects Powers to the Bay area on Tuesdays and Fridays. Curry Public Transit
operates a bus service serving Coos County from Brookings to the Bay area on Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday.
The Coordinated Transportation Plan compared transit dependent populations at both County
and state level. According to the 2000 Census, there is a disproportionately large share of low
income, elderly, and mobility impaired residents making up the population of Coos County.
This transportation special-needs population is expected to increase significantly over the next
15 years, as the fastest growing segment of the population have begun turning 60. The
Coordinated Transportation Plan provides recommendations for addressing this and other
issues concerning service deficiencies, which include:
• Providing more public transit service to outlying areas of the County;
• Expanding public transit service to include more evening and weekend service as
resources become available;
• Providing more frequent service on existing routes;
• Providing a higher level of paratransit services to those with special needs and expand
paratransit service hours;
• Improving and expanding medical service for veterans; and
• Improving programs for people commuting to jobs and employment training programs,
including shuttle services and ride-sharing/car pooling initiatives.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-10
The Coos County TSP includes rural street standards for Local Residential Streets, Collector
Streets, and Arterial Streets, taken from Section VII of the County’s Subdivision Ordinance. The
standards for existing and recommended streets are based on the proposed functional
classification of the roadway and the average amount of traffic that is expected. The TSP
update will include an update of the inventory of the existing street system, which includes
functional classification for state and local facilities.
Coos County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2005)
The Coos County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is a collaborative, comprehensive planning
document that contains strategies intended to reduce risk and prevent loss from future natural
hazard events across Coos County. The Mitigation Plan includes an inventory of critical
housing, employment and industry infrastructure. The Mitigation Plan addresses the
vulnerabilities and risks due to specific natural hazards and the current mitigation activities in
place administered at state and federal levels. The Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan further
includes individual community action items for eight individual communities in Coos County.
Coos County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance (1985)
The Coos County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance implements the Coos County
Comprehensive Plan as the basis for all land use development within the County. The
Ordinance establishes zoning districts, zoning classifications, design standards, and street and
road standards.
Chapter VII of the Coos County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance contains standards for
urban and rural roads, access management, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation.
Local Planning Documents and Regulations
The following local planning documents were reviewed:
• Bandon Transportation System Plan (2000)
• City of Coos Bay Transportation System Plan (2004)
• City of Coquille Transportation System Plan (1997)
• City of Lakeside Transportation Systems Improvement Plan (1995)
• City of Myrtle Point Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (1995)
• City of North Bend Transportation System Plan (2004)
• North Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan (2002)
Bandon Transportation System Plan (2000)
The City of Bandon completed a TSP in 2000. The TSP establishes a system of transportation
facilities and services adequate to meet the City of Bandon’s identified transportation needs for
the next twenty years. Bandon's Transportation System Plan summarizes the City’s main
transportation issues and identifies state and local policy and implementation requirements
with which the TSP must be consistent.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-11
Bandon’s TSP states that “to ensure consistency, the City will closely monitor development of
[Coos] County’s TSP as it progresses.” The TSP further states the need for the City and County
to “coordinate closely to address the access and movement functions of Highway 101 where
adjacent vacant lands are planned for commercial use.
City of Coos Bay Transportation System Plan (2004)
The City of Coos Bay Transportation System Plan (TSP) is a multi-modal plan addressing
improvement to existing roadways, new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, improvement in public
transit service, and other modes, including air, rail, water and pipeline. The TSP includes a
transportation improvement program, as well as changes to the City’s codes and standards to
implement the TSP recommendations.
The TSP includes goals and policies developed to guide the City’s twenty-year vision of
transportation needs. The goals of the Coos Bay TSP are as follows:
Goal 1: Transportation facilities designed and constructed in a manner to enhance Coos
Bay’s livability and meet federal, state, regional, and local requirements.
Goal 2: A balanced transportation system.
Goal 3: A safe transportation system.
Goal 4: An efficient transportation system that reduces the number and length of trips,
limits congestion, and improves air quality.
Goal 5: Transportation facilities that serve and are accessible to all members of the
community.
Goal 6: Transportation facilities that provide efficient movement of goods and services.
Goal 7: Implement the transportation plan by working cooperatively with federal, State,
regional, and local governments, the private sector, and residents. Create a stable, flexible
financial system.
City of Coquille Transportation System Plan (1997)
The City of Coquille’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) describes the existing transportation
system serving Coquille and identifies policies and implementation measures in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 1982) consistent with state and local transportation goals.
The TSP also identifies relevant sections of the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance.
City of Lakeside Transportation Systems Improvement Plan (1995)
The City of Lakeside’s Transportation Systems Improvement Plan summarizes the local area
transportation needs. The Study provides a list of transportation improvements, and changes
to the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances in order to promote all transportation modes.
City of Myrtle Point Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (1995)
This plan serves as an element of the City of Myrtle Point’s Comprehensive Plan, and describes
a pedestrian and bicycle system for implementation over the 20-year horizon. The Plan
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-12
contains an inventory of the existing walkway and bikeway systems in the City’s urban area.
The Plan’s recommended implementation measures include bicycle and pedestrian ordinances,
coordination and program support, potential sources of funding, and a list of projects to add to
the capital improvements list.
City of North Bend Transportation System Plan (2004)
This Transportation System Plan (TSP) is a multi-modal plan that addresses improvement to
existing roadways, new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, improvement in public transit service,
and other modes (including air, rail, water and pipeline). The plan also includes a transportation
improvement program, as well as changes to the City’s codes and standards to implement the
TSP recommendations.
Major components of the City of North Bend TSP include:
• Modifications to the street functional classification system to reflect current street
function and development patterns.
• Modifications to the city street standards, also including access spacing criteria.
• Signal system and intersection improvements, to increase capacity in the roadway
system where traffic congestion will become substantial during the next 20 years.
• Expansion of the City’s system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, with the objective of
sidewalks or pathways for pedestrians on all collector and arterial streets, and bike lanes
or bikeways on major collectors and arterials.
• Street improvement projects mitigating existing and predicted safety, capacity,
circulation and other deficiencies.
The TSP identifies 44 transportation improvements to be implemented over the 20-year
planning horizon.
North Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan (2002)
The Oregon International Port of Coos Bay updated the master plan completed in 1997 to
reflect changed circumstances and situations at the North Bend Municipal Airport. The Airport
Master Plan includes the two-phase series of improvements including renovation of the existing
terminal for general aviation use, runway improvements and construction of a new terminal
facility which is planned for completion by 2011.
There is no reference to the North Bend Municipal Airport in the Coos County Comprehensive
Plan. Coos County plans to apply an overlay Airport Surfaces zone to the airport by amending
the County Zoning and Land Development Ordinance.
Other Regional Area Planning Documents
The combined plan for the OR 38 and OR 42 corridors was the only regional document
reviewed.
Coos County Transportation System Plan March 2011
Appendix A-13
Corridor Plans for the OR 38 and OR 42 Corridors (2001)
The OR 38 and OR 42 Corridor Plans represent a cooperative effort between ODOT, local and
regional governments, other agencies and the general public to outline how ODOT will manage
the OR 38 and OR 42 highways over a 20 year period. The plan identifies and prioritizes the
most appropriate solutions to meet the identified long-term needs of the corridor. The basis
for these solutions is a review and analysis of relevant conditions and state and local policy.
The plan objectives call for providing specific management direction of the corridors as
appropriate, while being consistent with local Comprehensive Plans or TSP’s.
The plan identifies the OR 38 and OR 42 corridors as being the primary routes for both
personal/business travel and freight between Interstate 5 and Coos County and the South
Coast. The plan also states that OR 42 serves as the primary arterial for the cities of Coquille
and Myrtle Point. To balance the personal/business travel function and freight transport
function, the plan cites access management as a key management strategy, as well as ensuring
opportunities for alternative transportation modes (e.g. rail freight service, transit and bicycling
and pedestrian improvements) are provided where feasible.
Major Development Proposals
Only one development proposal was reviewed as it could relate to the Coos County TSP.
Jordan Cove Energy and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project (2008)
This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) is for a proposed liquefied natural gas pipeline
(LNG) and supporting equipment servicing the Pacific Northwest, northern California and
northern Nevada. The Pacific Connector pipeline would begin at the proposed LNG terminal in
Jordan Cove (Coos Bay) and proceed generally southeast about 230 miles across portions of
Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath Counties, to its end point near Malin at the Oregon-
California border.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), who is the EIS applicant, has indicated that
there will be a standard 95-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the pipeline. A portion of
the pipeline right-of-way will be adjacent to, or partially overlapping, existing utility and
transportation rights-of-way (powerlines, pipelines, and roads). All areas of pipeline right-of-
way construction would be temporary disturbance and would be restored upon completion.